Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ventnor Urban District Council Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (East Elloe Joint Water Supply District) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRIAL, MOSCOW.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received the report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow as to whether any British interests are involved in the trial now proceeding in the Hall of Nobles, Moscow?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow reports that the indictment in this case involves no British interests.

MINISTERS OF RELIGION (TAX).

Sir K. WOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ask the British Ambassador at Moscow to obtain a copy of the new decree of the Soviet Government increasing the tax on all ministers of religion in Soviet Russia?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the new regulations of the Commissariat of Finance, which were published in "Izvestia," of 24th February, I shall be happy to furnish him with a translation.

BRITISH DIPLOMATIC AND TRADE REPRESENTATIVES.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that our diplomatic and trade representatives in Russia are not given the same facilities for obtaining information as to current events and conditions in that country as our representatives in France and Germany are given and as the representatives of the Soviet Government in Great Britain are given; and whether he will make representations to the Soviet Government on the matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As I informed the House on 16th February last, His Majesty's Ambassador and his staff enjoy, in common with all foreign diplomatic missions in the Soviet Union, and on a basis of reciprocity, all the rights and privileges recognised by International Law. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain disabilities? Has his attention been drawn to the speech of the Russian Prime Minister last week in which he stated that, if they were assured that equal facilities would be granted by foreign countries, then facilities would be granted to representatives in Russia?

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Sir K. WOOD: 58.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department when he last received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador upon the labour conditions in the Soviet Union; and whether he has any further information to give to the House?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow, in accordance with his customary duties, reports regularly on changes in the labour legislation of the Soviet Union. No important changes have recently been introduced, and there is no further information which I could usefully give the House.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Member kindly look at my question? I am not asking about legislation but about conditions. Can he say something about them?

Mr. GILLETT: My answer includes conditions.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: May I ask whether His Majesty's Minister reports as to the extent to which legislation for the compulsory employment of pregnant mothers is put into operation?

Mr. WISE: Has the attention of the hon. Member been drawn to the statement made by the Prime Minister of Russia a few days ago that they were prepared to invite a committee to inquire into the conditions in Russia provided similar facilities were given to the Russian Government here?

Mr. GILLETT: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CONSULAR SERVICE.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of members of the Consular Service who have had business training and the proportion to the whole number?

Mr. GILLETT: I regret that I have not sufficient data on which to base a reply.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Would it not be worth while to insist on having business men to handle business?

Mr. GILLETT: I hardly think it would. The hon. Member is aware that the Consular Services are being recruited from young men who come in by examination.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British Vice-Consuls who are not British subjects and their proportion to the whole number?

Mr. GILLETT: There are 377 salaried consular officers, all of whom are of British nationality, and there are 521 unsalaried consular officers, of whom 376 are British subjects.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Would it not be possible to replace foreign subjects by British subjects?

Mr. GILLETT: We are always careful before a new appointment is made to make certain that no British subject is available.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Are these posts advertised?

Mr. GILLETT: I must ask for notice of that question.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Mr. KINLEY (for Mr. STEPHEN): 71.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that temporary clerks employed in the Ministry of Labour are paid smaller salaries than members of the permanent staff for doing the same work; and whether she will take steps to see that such temporary workers are paid at the same rate as those in permanent employment who do the same work?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): The work of temporary clerks in the Ministry of Labour is normally of a lower order than that of the permanent staff. Their rates of pay are the rates fixed for temporary clerks in all Government Departments, partly by agreement with the staff associations concerned and partly by arbitration.

Mr. KINLEY: Could not this matter be considered further from the point of view of those affected?

Mr. LAWSON: It is a matter for negotiation on the part of the associations concerned.

CHINESE RAILWAY BONDS (BRITISH HOLDERS).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs haw many conferences have been held since November last between His Majesty's Minister in China and the Chinese Government on the subject of the default of the Chinese Government in its obligations to British holders of Chinese railway bonds, and with what result?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No further conference has been held since November, though there has been a good deal of correspondence with the Chinese Government. His Majesty's Minister in China has been engaged in collecting information regarding British claims. In this connection I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies returned
to the hon. Member for Farnham on the 2nd February, 4th February and 4th March.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chinese Government is issuing internal loans based on customs receipts, and that they are standing now in front of the railway loans which are in default?

Mr. HENDERSON: The hon. Gentleman had better place that on the Order Paper.

COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what questions came before the Permanent Court of International Justice during 1930 in respect of which counsel were briefed by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No question was brought by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom before the Permanent Court of International Justice during the year 1930.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MORAY FIRTH (FOREIGN TRAWLERS).

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to arrange for the summoning of a convention of the Powers interested in the North Sea fisheries with a view to obtaining an international agreement for the exclusion of foreign trawlers from the Moray Firth and other areas outside territorial limits which are at present closed to trawlers by orders issued by the Fishery Board for Scotland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I have been asked to reply. I have given an undertaking that I will bring the present situation in the Moray Firth before my colleagues in the Government, as a result of the inquiries which I personally conducted there last week. The suggestion made in the question will be considered in that connection.

Mr. MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme urgency of the matter, and will he take every step possible to allay the irritation that is felt?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am well aware of it.

FISHERY BOARD.

Mr. MILLAR: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state the names of the members of the new Fishery Board for Scotland and the interests represented on the Board?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The composition of the new board, as intimated to the Press yesterday, is as follows:

Mr. George Hogarth, Chairman.

Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie, K.C., Sheriff of Ayrshire, Legal Member and Deputy-Chairman.

Professor D'Arcy W. Thompson, C.B., F.R.S., Scientific Member.
Sir Malcolm Smith, K.B.E.

Mr. William W. Carstairs.

Mr. W. J. Merson, Provost of Buckie.

Mr. George Slater, C.B.E., of Aberdeen.

The board has been constituted so as to secure adequate representation of the various sea fishing interests of Scotland.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS.

Mr. MILLAR: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to the situation created in those Scottish burghs which have adoped the Public Libraries Acts, and are already levying a library rate, through the imposition of a second library rate by the county councils; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. By "second library rate" is no doubt meant that part of the education rate which is requisitioned from the burghs in question to meet expenditure on the provision of books. It is open to the county council and the town council of any such burgh to co-operate in the distribution of books on the condition, if thought desirable, of a payment by the county council to the town council, and I would suggest that such a co-operation should be considered.

Mr. MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether such co-operation has already been discussed by the authorities concerned?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the county of Fife preliminaries have been practically arranged between the large burgh authorities and the county council?

Mr. MILLAR: Is the co-operation likely to take place between the other parties concerned, apart from the county of Fife, of which I know?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already said that co-operation has been suggested, and I know that it is being discussed by the local authorities and other bodies interested.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

LIEUT.-COMMANDERS (RETIREMENT SCHEME).

Commander SOUTHBY: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the recently published scheme of retirement for lieut.-commanders, whether, in the event of these officers being called up for active service, they will revert to the retired list at the same rate of pay set forth in the special scheme or at the rates of pay current on the date of their reversion?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Such officers would, under present regulations, revert to the same rate of pay set forth in the special scheme, subject to any change in the cost of living adjustments.

Commander SOUTHBY: On a point of Order. I put down a question to the First Lord last week for to-day. It does not appear on the Paper. Should I be in order in asking it?

Mr. SPEAKER: If there is time.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Will these officers who have retired ever be eligible for higher rank?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It depends on whether they come back.

FLAG OFFICERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many flag officers are now employed
on full pay; and what was the corresponding number in 1913?

Mr. ALEXANDER: 52 flag officers were employed on full pay in 1913, of these three were supernumeraries lent to Dominion or foreign Governments. In March, 1931, 44 are employed and of these three are supernumeraries lent to Dominion Governments. This number will be further reduced by two about May.

OIL FUEL.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the quantity of oil used by the British Navy during each of the last three years ended 31st December, 1930; and how much of the oil used was oil made from British coal in this country?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is not desirable in the national interest to furnish information as to the total quantities of oil fuel consumed by the British Navy in the years named. The approximate quantities of oil made from British coa[...] used in the years in question were:



Tons.


1928
…
…
…
…
14,000


1929
…
…
…
…
30,000


1930
…
…
…
…
22,000

COAL CONSUMPTION.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the quantity of coal used by the British Navy during each of the last three years ended 31st December, 1930?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The quantities of coal used by the Royal Navy during the years in question were as follow:



Tons.


1928
…
…
…
247,000


1929
…
…
…
208,000


1930
…
…
…
182,000

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why, if the right hon. Gentleman is able to give the figures for coal, does he refuse the figures for oil?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his knowledge of the Navy, should be able to answer that question for himself.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not know the answer. May I have some elucidation?

Colonel ASHLEY: Do the figures imply that manoeuvre time is being curtailed as compared with former years?

Mr. ALEXANDER: No, this means that there is a reduction in the number of ships that are burning coal.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "FISGARD" (ENGINEERING TOOLS).

Sir B. FALLE: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the engineering tools supplied in the workshops of His Majesty's Ship "Fisgard," such as squares, pliers, hand vices, etc., for artificer apprentices, are foreign made; and if he will take steps to provide British-made tools in future?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The contracts in question involve 49 items of tools, and tenders for their supply were invited from 27 British makers and factors. Particulars of the offers received were communicated to the "Fisgard" officers who selected those which they considered the best for their purposes, having due regard to the descriptions and samples of tools offered and their relative prices. All but four of the items so selected were offered as being of British manufacture and for these four either no suitable British substitutes were available, or the American tools were definitely preferred on grounds of quality. The total value of the orders placed last year for these four items was some £13.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a question of principle and not of amount?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am aware of it, as I think my answer shows.

CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIRS (GLASGOW SHIPYARDS).

Mr. MACLEAN: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that 53 per cent. of the shipbuilding and ship-repairing workers in Glasgow are unemployed; and whether, in view of the extensive ship-repairing programme of the Admiralty, he can place any of that work with the Glasgow shipyards?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The main function of the Royal Dockyards is the repair of the Fleet, and for many years it has been the policy of
the Admiralty to send to private yards only such work as cannot be undertaken in the Royal Yards. At the present time the removal of any repair work would entail discharges of men in the Royal Yards as well as causing extra expense and inconvenience. I regret, therefore, that the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that there is a likelihood of additional men being employed in Government yards, and could not some of that extra work be sent to the Clyde?

Mr. ALEXANDER: There is no question of additional men in the yards as a whole. In fact, we are only stabilising the number by reducing the entries.

Viscountess ASTOR: Was it not always the policy of the Socialist Government that national work should be done in national yards?

SISAL PURCHASES, EAST AFRICA.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH (for Mr. LESLIE BOYCE): 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding the recently announced intention of the Admiralty to purchase 50 tons of sisal from East Africa; and will he say whether and for what reason the tenders for supplying the same have now been withdrawn?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Fifty tons of sisal hemp from British East Africa have actually been purchased for trial; the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what farm the trial will take?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I require notice of that question, which does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now tabulate a statement showing what the precise naval strength in all categories of war vessels under 20 years of age of the five signatory Powers of the London Naval Treaty will be in 1936, assuming that all the signatory Powers build up to the full tonnage
allowance permitted them under the terms of the treaty as modified by the agreement just concluded with the French and Italian Governments?

—
British Commonwealth of Nations.
U.S.A.
Japan.
France.
Italy.


Capital Ships
…
138,650
260,600*
154,750
46,666
46,666


Aircraft Carriers
…
135,000
135,000
81,000
56,146
34,000


Cruisers:—







Guns of more than 6/"
…
146,800
180,000
108,400
70,000
70,000


Guns of 6/" or leas
…
192,200
143,500
100,450
198,233
151,363


Destroyers
…
150,000
150,000
105,500


Submarines
…
52,700
52,700
52,700
81,989†
52,700


* Includes 9,000 tons allowed for modernisation of new Mexico Class.


† This figure is unacceptable to us in permanent relation to our destroyer tonnage figure of 150,000 tons. It has been accepted temporarily, pending a satisfactory solution at the 1932 Conference.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state for each country concerned the classes, numbers, tonnage, and armament of war vessels that are now under construction in those countries for other countries?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As the answer is in tabular form, I will with the hon. and gallant Member's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Building in
For
Class.
Number.
Tonnage.
Armament.


Great Britain
Yugoslavia
…
Flotilla Leader
1
2,400
4 5/" 6 torpedo tubes (21").


France
Poland
…
Destroyer
1
1,515
4 5/" 6 torpedo tubes (21/").



Poland
…
Submarine
3
964
1 3/" 6 tubes (21/").


Italy
Rumania
…
Submarine
1
640
1 4/" 6 tubes (21.2).



Rumania
…
Submarine Depot Ship.
1
2,264
2 4" A.A.



Argentine
…
Cruiser
2
6,495
6 7/" 6 tubes (21/").



Argentine
…
Submarine
3
863
1 4/" 8 tubes (21").



Turkey
…
Destroyer
2
1,230
4 4/" 6 tubes (21").



Turkey


2
1,450



Turkey
…
Submarine
1
624
1 4/" 6 tubes (21").



Turkey

Submarine
1
876
1 4" 4 tubes (21").



Turkey
…
Submarine Chasers
3
33.5
1 3" 2 torpedoes (18").



Greece
…
Destroyer
2
1,230
4 4/" 6 torpedo tubes (21").



Greece


2
1,427



Greece
…
C.M.B.
2
35.4
—



Persia
…
Gunboat
2
935
—



Persia
…
Patrol Vessel
4
326
—

Mr. ALEXANDER: As the answer is in tabular form, I will with the hon. Member's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the figures for Italy?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will get the answer in a few minutes, and he will get all he wants.

Following is the answer:

At the end of Questions—

Commander SOUTHBY: In reference to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order just now, may I take this opportunity to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question which has been on the Order Paper for some time but which appears to have been by some mischance transferred to another date without reference to me? The question is how far the construction has gone in the 1930 naval programmes for the United States of America and Japan, respectively? In asking that question may I point out that it is germane to the subject of the Debate which is about to take place.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am in the hands of the House and of you Mr. Speaker, in this matter. The question is not on the Paper. It is marked as having been postponed until Thursday, on page 1770 of the Orders of 9th March—not at our request.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not bound to give the answer now.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am willing to give the answer now. The answer is as follows:
In the United States of America and Japan the British system of an annual building programme is not always followed. Building programmes are usually put forward at irregular intervals covering, as a rule, a period of years. In the case of both countries, however, Annual Appropriations are necessary to carry out the authorised programme. Appropriations were made for the following new vessels in 1930:

United States of America.

1 Aircraft Carrier.—Contract awarded 16th October, 1930.

2 Cruisers:

No. 37.—Contract awarded 14th February, 1931.

No. 38.—Ordered 11th October, 1930.

Submarine V.7.—Laid down 1930. Japan.

1 Minelayer.—Laid down August, 1930.

CYPRUS (GREEK EDUCATION).

Mr. DENMAN: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether in Cyprus British officials responsible for Greek education are themselves required to speak and write Greek with proficiency?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): Yes, Sir.

CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).

Major GRAHAM POLE: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Order-in-Council relating to the new constitution of Ceylon will be issued; whether it will contain the instructions to the executive committees referred to by the Governor in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of his despatch dated 31st March, 1930; and whether the unofficial members of the Ceylon Legislative Council will be consulted beforehand as to the nature of these instructions?

Dr. SHIELS: It is hoped that the Order-in-Council will be issued in a few weeks, but some details still remain to be considered. The Order, and the Standing Orders of the Council to be made thereunder, will contain provisions governing the relations between executive committees and the State Council, and the relations between the committees and the departments will be defined in a Statement of Administrative Procedure to be issued by the Governor. It is not proposed to lay the Order-in-Council before the Legislative Council before issue, but I understand that the Governor has discussed the draft of the statement with the unofficial members.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (OIL CONSUMPTION).

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the quantity of oil used by the Air Ministry during each of the three years ended 31st December, 1930; and how much of this was oil extracted from British coal in this country?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): As regards the first part of the question, I regret that it is not in the public interest to give the information for which my hon. Friend asks. As regards the second part, only a small quantity of oil fuel extracted from British coal was con-
sumed: it was used for experimental purposes.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the amount of British oil in this matter is being increased, and is he trying to increase the amount?

Mr. MONTAGUE: There is a very small amount used entirely for experimental purposes. I cannot say what will be the result of the experiment.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it compares in price with foreign oil?

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Can the hon. Member say, at any rate, what proportion of the oil used by the British aircraft came from the British Empire?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I can answer the question if I am given notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR COACHES (FIRST-AID OUTFITS).

Mr. SORENSEN: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider compelling proprietors of motor coaches to have first-aid outfits carried on their vehicles?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have this point under consideration in connection with the further Regulations which will shortly be made dealing with the use and equipment of public service vehicles.

Mr. SORENSEN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Order of St. John recently pressed for this arrangement to take place?

Mr. MORRISON: I am not aware of that fact, but, the point having been brought to my attention, my hon. Friend may rest assured that it will not be overlooked.

BATH ROAD, WILTSHIRE (WIDENING).

Mr. HURD: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport how much public money in Road Fund grants and rates is to be spent under the plans adopted for the widening of the Bath Road in Wiltshire?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The estimated cost of widening the section
of the Bath Road in Wiltshire is £360,000. The grant from the Road Fund will be £288,000 (80 per cent. of the total cost), leaving £72,000 to be found by the county council.

Mr. HURD: Seeing that most of the labour comes from outside and that this widening is for the purposes of through traffic rather than local traffic, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to relieve the local ratepayers of any cost in the matter?

Mr. MORRISON: Certainly not.

Mr. HURD: Why not?

Mr. MORRISON: Because 80 per cent. is a very substantial State grant-in-aid.

Colonel ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that practically all the usage of this road is through traffic, and that labour comes from outside?

Mr. MORRISON: One of the reasons that the additional grant is being given is that there is some labour coming from certain outside areas. With regard to the traffic, I cannot give an answer on the spur of the moment on the particular question, but my general experience is that, on analysis, there is far more local traffic than people usually assume.

Mr. HURD: Not on this road.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (DRIVERS' HOURS).

Mr. JAMES WILSON: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give particulars of the application he has received to extend the time a driver of a public service vehicle may remain continuously on duty and to reduce the periods of rest as prescribed in Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for the protection of the public against the risks which arise where a driver is suffering from excessive fatigue; whether he has sought the advice of the Industrial Court on the matter; and whether he proposes to adopt the recommendations of the court?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have received a joint application under Section 19 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for variations of the hours of employment laid down in that Section on the part of the Transport and General Workers' Union on the one hand and the Com-
mercial Motor Users' Association, the Motors Hirers' and Coach Services Association, the Municipal Tramways and Transport Association, the Tramways, Light Railways and Transport Association, and the Omnibus Owners' Association on the other. The application, which relates only to the passenger transport side of the industry, was referred by me to the Industrial Court for advice in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
After careful consideration of the advice tendered by the Industrial Court and of all the circumstances of the case, I have decided to make an Order which shall have the following effect:
1. As a variation of paragraph (1) of sub-section (1) of section 19.
In the case of a stage carriage where in any period of 24 hours one continuous period of duty only is worked, then for such period of duty the limit of 8½ hours may be substituted for the limit of 5½ hours, if the driver of the vehicle is allowed intervals of time for signing on and off and for looking over the vehicle before the vehicle leaves, and after the vehicle returns to the garage, and for lay-over to an extent which, in the aggregate, is not less than 45 minutes, provided that where the continuous period of duty does not exceed eight hours, the allowed intervals of time need not exceed 40 minutes.
2. As a variation of the proviso to subsection (1).
In the case of a stage carriage the period of eight consecutive hours may, on one day in any period of seven consecutive days, be substituted for the period of nine consecutive hours for rest.
3. As an additional proviso to paragraph (iii) of sub-section (1).
If between any two periods of driving an express carriage or a contract carriage there is an interval of not less than four consecutive hours at a destination during which the driver of the vehicle is able to obtain rest and refreshment on one day in any period of seven consecutive days, or on two days if the said period includes a Bank Holiday, the period of eight consecutive hours may be substituted for the period of 10 consecutive hours of rest.

Mr. WILSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the reduction in the over-all hours of the railway drivers, there has happily been a reduction in the number of accidents both to the public and to the railway staffs; and does he not now think that a substantial increase in the over-all working hours of the men working road transport will defeat the very object he has in mind, which is to protect the public against accidents on the highways?

Mr. MORRISON: I think that my hon. Friend overlooks the fact that the Section, as modified, will in effect enormously improve the conditions in road transport.

Sir W. BRASS: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make an order for all public service vehicles to carry red triangular stop lights at the rear, operated automatically when the footbrake is applied, in order to reduce the risk of collision when these vehicles are stopped suddenly, without warning, to pick up or drop passengers?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion. The use of stop lights is not compulsory on any motor vehicle and there do not seem to me to be sufficient grounds for making an exception in the case of public service vehicles. Every driver knows that these vehicles are liable to stop to pick up and set down passengers and should make allowance accordingly.

Sir W. BRASS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that in the country the warning is very often not given by the driver, and this effect causes people rather to tend to run into the back of those vehicles?

Mr. MORRISON: I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the case is really no more strong in the case of public service vehicles than in any others, and I would warn him against this tendency to insist upon a vast field of bureaucratic interference.

Mr. MILLS: Is the Minister aware that the London General Omnibus Company have already adopted this system,
and that by comparison with some of the publicly-owned tramways of London, they are a very great asset to the rest of the travelling community, because of the rapid way they pull up without warning?

Captain GUNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that there is great danger to the passengers getting off these vehicles on to the pavement unless the motor vehicle behind is warned?

Mr. MORRISON: The passenger gets off after the vehicle has drawn up to the curb.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider applying this to the trams, because their electro-magnetic brake causes them to decelerate at a quicker rate than any other vehicles on the road?

Mr. MORRISON: I have no powers under the Road Traffic Act in that connection.

RIVER RODING.

Mr. SORENSEN: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the proposal to convert the River Roding, between Ilford and Woodford Bridge, in Essex, into a navigable waterway; and whether he will consider granting assistance to such a scheme?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The proposal has not yet been placed before me, and I am not therefore in a position to say whether it might be eligible for grant under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929.

Mr. SORENSEN: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has had no communication respecting this proposal at all?

Mr. MORRISON: That would appear to be the case.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consult with the local authorities concerned in this matter?

Mr. MORRISON: It is for the responsible local authority to communicate with me.

DARTFORD-PURFLEET TUNNEL.

Mr. MILLS: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to state when work will commence on the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel; whether the Kent County Council have yet agreed to contribute their quota; and what percentage of the cost is being borne by the county councils and the Government respectively?

Mr. OLDFIELD: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport when it is intended to begin work on the Purfleet-Dartford tunnel; and what is the reason for the delay?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Particulars as to the quotas payable by various local authorities were given in the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) on the 25th February, of which I am sending a copy to each hon. Member. I have nothing to add to the information then furnished as to the progress of the negotiations. These must run their course and the engineering preparations must be completed before the work can be started.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this tunnel was agreed to be projected in 1924?

Mr. MORRISON: I believe it was approved in principle at that time, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that I was not there between 1924 and 1929.

Mr. MILLS: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of Question 34; what percentage of the cost has been borne by the county council and the Government respectively?

Mr. MORRISON: I gave information as to the contributions coming from outside. I am afraid that I shall require notice of the point mentioned by the hon. Member. The Government grant is quite substantial.

CALEDONIAN CANAL SWING BRIDGES (CONTRACT).

Mr. MACLEAN: 37 and 38.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he can state the names of the firms that have been invited to submit tenders for swing bridges over the Caledonian Canal;
whether he can state the particular reasons for the selection of those firms to the exclusion of other bridge-building firms; whether he can state which of the firms selected sub-let the contract for the stonework; and which firms carry out the whole work with their own staff;
(2) whether he is aware that a bridge-building firm in Glasgow which has previously been allowed to tender for Government contracts has been refused the right to tender for the swing bridges over the Caledonian Canal; and, if so, whether he can state the reason for this refusal?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The contract in this case was not suitable for open tender, and tenders were therefore invited from a limited number of firms, with special experience of the type of work required, who were asked to submit their own designs for the bridges. I understand that none of these firms would sub-let the contract for the foundations. My hon. Friend will, I think, appreciate that it would be undesirable to announce the names of the competing firms.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what difference there is in this particular type of bridge from bridges over canals.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Were any local firms in Inverness asked to tender?

Mr. MORRISON: The list includes Scottish firms.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I asked about Inverness firms.

Mr. MORRISON: I cannot say about that. I hope that hon. Members will not come to the point of pressing me in regard to particular firms.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a new departure on the part of the Ministry of Transport to select certain firms from among those who are capable of doing this particular class of work?

Mr. MORRISON: No, it is not a new process on the part of local authorities and on the part of the Government in work of exceptional importance or of possible difficulty to limit tenders to selected firms. It is quite common and a matter of public policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

ALMSCLIFFE CRAGG (STANDARDS).

Major BRAITHWAITE: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the proposed erection alongside Almscliffe Cragg, in the valley of the Wharfe, West Yorkshire, of electrical standards which, if erected, will do much to destroy a local beauty spot; and if he will take steps to have these standards run alongside the railway line in the valley?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand that this matter is at present under discussion with the local authority concerned. No formal application has yet been made for my consent.

PARTON, CUMBERLAND.

Mr. PRICE: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Parton Parish Council in Cumberland applied two years ago to the Silkstone Company for the supply of electricity to their area; that, although the principle was approved, no further action was taken; whether he has been informed as to the cause of the delay; and whether he will take steps to assist the extension of electric supply to their area?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: This matter has not been brought to the notice of myself or the Electricity Commissioners, but I have asked the Commissioners to inquire into the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

REORGANISATION COMMISSION (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION AND EQUIPMENT).

Sir BASIL PETO: 39.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is proposed to purchase furniture for the equipment of the offices to be used by the clerical staff of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission or to use furniture already in store?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): With the exception of a few articles of second-hand equipment all the furniture for the offices of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission is being supplied ex Office of Works contracts.

Sir B. FALLE: 40.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the office ac-
commodation for the clerical staff of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission has been provided in a building already in Government occupation or whether it is proposed to hire outside accommodation?

Mr. LANSBURY: Arrangements have already been made to house the staff of the Commission in outside hired accommodation.

Mr. SMITHERS: 43.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what is the reason that the clerical staff of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission has not, in the interests of economy, been housed in the building occupied by the Office of Works as a result of closer settlement?

Mr. LANSBURY: As I am informed the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) on the 10th February, 1930, the accommodation in the 'building occupied by the Office of Works is already utilised to the fullest possible extent.

Mr. BATEY: 62.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can state the number of meetings held by the commissioners of the Coal Reorganisation Commission?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I am advised that four meetings of this commission have been held.

Mr. BATEY: 63.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can state the amount of expenses of each of the commissioners of the Coal Reorganisation Commission for each meeting they have attended?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am advised that this information is not available, as claims for expenses have not yet been received, but the commissioners are entitled to claim travelling and subsistence allowances on the usual scale.

DISPLACED WORKMEN, DARTON.

Mr. POTTS: 59.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Coal Mines Act, 1930, Part I, so as to avoid the displacement of workmen at present taking place, in view of the fact that 1,500 workmen at Messrs. Fountain and Burnley's collieries, Dayton, Yorkshire, have as a result been unemployed for weeks?

Mr. SHINWELL: As my hon. Friend is aware, the total volume of employment
has not been affected by the regulation of output under the Coal Mines Act, 1930. The allocation by the Central Council is based on the probable total consumption of coal for the quarter and is considered to be fair and equitable having regard to the interests of the industry as a whole. I cannot see my way to introduce the legislation asked for which would undermine the regulation of output which Part I of the Act was designed to effect.

Mr. POTTS: Will the Secretary for Mines look into the matter and see if it is possible for this authority to give some higher allocation than is being given at the present time?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the collieries referred to have had a fair allocation according to the allocation of all the other collieries?

Mr. SHINWELL: I think the hon. Member had better await the reply to another question.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: In view of the difference of opinion, is the hon. Member willing to appoint an impartial committee to go into it?

Mr. SHINWELL: I do not think there is any difference of opinion.

Major COLVILLE: Does the Secretary for Mines still adhere to the view expressed in this House that no men have lost their jobs on account of the Act?

Mr. SHINWELL: What I have told the hon. and gallant Member is that there has been no loss of employment as a result of the quota, taking the country as a whole.

SUPPLIES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: 60.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that more than half the Hull trawlers will be unable to go to sea next month owing to the shortage of coal under the operation of the quota provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1930; and what action he proposes to take to remedy the situation?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 61.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the anticipated difficulties in the supply of bunker
coal to the Hull steam trawler fleets under the working of the Coal Mines Act quota; and what action has been taken?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 64.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the complaints from Yorkshire and Nottingham to the effect that under the operation of Clause 1 of the Coal Mines Act production has had to be restricted and as a consequence miners have been thrown out of employment; and what action he proposes to take to deal with this situation?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have received deputations from the trawler owners and from the Coal Merchants' Federation, and, while it seems clear that at the moment there is no general shortage of coal from the Midland district, fears have been expressed that there may be a shortage of supplies consequent on the reduced quota for March. The difficulties that such a shortage would cause, particularly if the present severe weather continues, were stressed. The British Trawlers' Federation, Limited, and the Coal Merchants' Federation have, at my suggestion, made representations in the matter to the National Committee of Investigation which is constituted under the provisions of Section 5 of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, to investigate complaints with regard to the Central Scheme in force under that Act. The National Committee is meeting on Thursday morning to consider these representations.
While the Act confers no power upon the Government to intervene in the administration of the schemes in force thereunder, I have written to the Central Council and the Executive Board of the Midland (Amalgamated) Scheme, calling their attention to the provisions of the Central Scheme which are designed to deal with increases in the district allocation to meet an increased demand for coal or any class of coal. I do not think the hon. and gallant Members for Central and North-West Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Sir A. Lambert Ward) need have any fears about supplies for trawlers next month when a new allocation of coal for the districts takes effect.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Can the hon. Member tell us how long that investigation is going to take, because, as things are at present, there will be a
definite shortage of coal for trawlers unless an alteration is made.

Mr. SHINWELL: It need not take more than a few hours; but I do not share the hon. and gallant Member's view that there will be a definite shortage. My information is to the contrary effect.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is absolutely necessary in the case of working a steam trawling fleet that they shall know some weeks ahead what coal is available and will he represent this to the central committee, as otherwise a great many of our trawlers will have to stop going to sea?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have already told the House that representations will be made by the interested parties—namely, the Trawler Owners' Association and the Coal Merchants' Federation to the National Committee of Investigation tomorrow. My information, which is supported by the Trawlers' Federation, is that at the moment there is no fear of a shortage of coal, and we are satisfied, when the next allocation Is made, that there will be no shortage.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: May I ask—

Mr. WOMERSLEY: On a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I called the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the hon. Member aware that, as a result of pursuing his policy outlined in the Bill, it will mean an increase of 2s. per ton in the price of coal and, therefore, with the winter coming on will he not take an opportunity of consulting the interested parties in this matter?

Mr. SHINWELL: The increase in the cost of coal referred to by the hon. and gallant Member has not transpired so far. As regards the shortage of coal, I pointed out in a reply to a question yesterday that there has been an under-production of coal, having regard to the allocation of 3,000,000 tons up to the end of February.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the Minister aware that vessels were held up in Grimsby yesterday, because they could not get coal?

Mr. SHINWELL: If the hon. Member has definite information to that effect he might let me have it. It would enable me to act. I am not in receipt of such information so far, but no doubt it will be put before the appropriate body to-morrow.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the grave shortage of house coal in the Birmingham district and consequent suffering amongst the residents, he will take steps at once to suspend the operation of the quota system in the Coal Mines Act?

Mr. SHINWELL: From inquiries that I have caused to be made in the short time at my disposal since I was aware that this question was to be asked, I can find no evidence to support the statement that there is a grave shortage of house coal in the Birmingham district. I am advised that while there may be a little difficulty in securing one or two qualities of house coal, there are adequate supplies of other qualities. In these circumstances, I could not advise Parliament to take the drastic steps suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

Major THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the largest suppliers of coal in Birmingham, namely, the Ten Acres Co-operative Society was unable to supply more than 60 per cent. of its customers last week, although at a higher price; and is he further aware that two of the chief collieries supplying this society have written to say that, although they have demands for an output of five days a week, they are only able to work half time?

Mr. SHINWELL: I imagine that it would be rather extraordinary if a cooperative society in Birmingham, experiencing such a shortage of coal, did not make representation to the Mines Department or the Committee of Investigation

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE- LISTER: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that
it is vitally necessary that there should be a power of elasticity which would enable the demand immediately to be met; and that people who need coal should not be driven to a tribunal?

Mr. SHINWELL: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware there is a power of elasticity, but that power is vested, not in the Mines Department, but in the hands of the Central Council of Coal-owners, and, if they care to use it, no one will interfere with them.

EAST BRISTOL COLLIERIES.

Captain GUNSTON: 65.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that an agreement was come to between the owners and the workmen's representatives of the East Bristol collieries to submit their differences to arbitration; that in the presence of an official of his Department both sides agreed to abide by the award of the arbitrators; and that since 1st March the collieries have been idle, the men refusing to accept the award; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure the acceptance by both parties of the award of the arbitrators?

Mr. SHINWELL: With regard to the first three parts of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel D. Brown); in regard to the fourth part, I am keeping in touch with the situation, but in present circumstances I do not see any grounds upon which I could properly intervene.

Captain GUNSTON: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman, in his answer to me yesterday, said that an agreement had been come to by both sides to submit the matter to arbitration, and is it not further a fact that an agreement was come to by both sides to abide by the award of the arbitrators?

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. and gallant Member has stated the facts accurately.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 66.
asked the Secretary for Mines what plan or proposal is now before the Government whereby the national consumption of heavy and light fuel oils can be met by the treatment of British coal?

Mr. SHINWELL: The Government is keeping the subject of extraction of oil from coal under constant review, but I have at present no new specific proposal to report to the House.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that no question of prejudice as to the ownership of coal measures will be allowed to stand in the way of this great national project?

Mr. SHINWELL: I can.

BIRDCAGE WALK (BENCHES).

Sir B. FALLE: 41.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the cost of the teak benches recently placed in the Birdcage Walk and the relative cost as compared with the ordinary wood and iron benches in the Park; whether the teak benches will be painted or oiled; and the reason for placing an arm in the centre of the bench?

Mr. LANSBURY: The cost of teak benches is £6 12s. each, and of the ordinary benches £2 13s. 6d. each. The teak benches are treated with oil when necessary. The centre arm is provided to prevent people from lying on them to the exclusion of others.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PHOTOGRAPHS).

Mr. EDE: 42.
asked the First Commissioner of Works when and where it is proposed to replace the photographs taken by the late Sir Benjamin Stone, and formerly hanging in the corridor downstairs?

Mr. LANSBURY: The pictures have been hung in the North Curtain Corridor.

HYDE PARK (CONDITION OF ROAD).

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: 44.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will take steps to have the road between the Alexandra and Victoria gates in Hyde Park put into a proper state of repair?

Mr. LANSBURY: Provision has been made in the Estimates for 1931 for re-
making the portion of the road over the Serpentine bridge. Minor repairs will be carried out when necessary to the remainder of the road.

FIGHTING SERVICES (ADMINISTRATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the financial situation, the setting up of a single Ministry of Defence for the three fighting services has been reconsidered?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on the 3rd February last in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand that the Government have quite closed their minds to this reform?

The PRIME MINISTER: They have not closed their minds to it; they have put it on the shelf.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Since the last answer was given the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the financial situation is much worse. Therefore, the matter might be reopened.

CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House who is to perform the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the enforced absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will do his routine work.

Mr. HACKING: While the House deplores the illness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is it really a satisfactory position that there should be no Cabinet Minister with a constant knowledge of the finances of the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say that.

Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who is the Cabinet Minister who will have constant touch with the Treasury?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, so far as matters relating to policy, larger matters, are involved.

Mr. HACKING: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be well enough to be in constant touch?

PERFORMING ANIMALS (REGULATION) BILL.

Mr. FREEMAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will provide facilities for the passing into law of the Performing Animals (Regulation) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I can hold out no hope of time being found for this Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Sir W. BRASS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister what new schemes, if any, have been initiated for the relief of unemployment as a result of the decision of the House on the Motion of 12th February last?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I explained to the House in accepting the Resolution moved by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), there is nothing in the terms of that Resolution involving any departure from the settled policy of the Government. During the whole period of office of the Government, work has been proceeding on all the matters referred to in the Resolution and that work is being actively continued, certain aspects are being specially re-examined and further proposals discussed. On the 1st February—the latest date for which complete particulars are available—the value of the works of economic development approved by the Government for assisting in the relief of unemployment was £160,000,000, as compared with £153,000,000 on the 1st January.

Sir W. BRASS: Are we to understand that the game of tactics is still going on?

Sir K. WOOD: The Prime Minister used the word "approved"; can he tell us the actual amount expended?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question put to me has been answered in the words that I have used, and, if further information is required, I shall be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Order Paper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether any progress has been made with that part of the Resolution which deals with the increase in land values created by improvement schemes?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is another matter.

SNOW CLEARING.

Mr. MILLS: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any special regulations have been framed to provide that unemployed men given temporary employment in snow-clearing do not forfeit their right to benefit because of taking such work?

Mr. LAWSON: There is no power to make regulations distinguishing snow-clearing from any other form of temporary employment as regards disqualification for the receipt of benefit. Whether work of this kind would disentitle an individual claimant for the receipt of benefit is a matter for the statutory authorities.

Mr. McSHANE: Since this is obviously a matter of only a day or two, will not the Minister give special instructions that no man should be penalised?

Mr. MILLS: As, obviously, Parliament has taken power out of the hands of the Minister to deal with the court of referees, can the hon. Gentleman state whether the Minister of Labour is watching the effect of this power now given, with a view to possible revision by this House?

Mr. LAWSON: This is a matter in which the Minister has no power. As I have pointed out in my answer, the Minister cannot give instructions in such cases. The Minister has no power to take this question out of the hands of the statutory authorities nor is there power to deal with the matter except through the court of referees. As regards the ques-
tion of the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), that is a matter for legislation.

Mr. McSHANE: Is it not within the competency of the Minister of Labour at any rate to ask that, in this respect, the court shall determine sympathetically the rules which are laid down.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER.

Mr. HACKING: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of the duties to be performed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he will recommend the appointment of a new Chancellor whose duties may be solely confined to the interests of the county?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not contemplate any departure from the usual practice, and see no necessity for it.

Mr. HACKING: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to appoint a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whose sole duties will be to look after the interests of Lancashire?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is a Chancellor of the Duchy existing, whose duly it is to look after the interests of Lancashire, and he is doing his work admirably?

Mr. HACKING: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not capable of looking after the duties of the Post Office as well as the duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy.

SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what international conventions concerning shipping are now awaiting ratification by this country; what is the intention of the Government in regard to each; and whether legislation will be necessary

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The International Conventions affecting shipping awaiting ratification by this country are those relating to Safety of Life at Sea, Load Lines,
Limitation of Shipowners' Liability, Maritime Mortgages and Liens, and the Immunity of State Owned Ships. A Bill to give effect to the Safety of Life at Sea Convention was introduced in another place in November last, but my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering the possibility of dealing with that Convention and the Load Line Convention in one Measure. Legislation will also be necessary to give effect to the remaining three Conventions, and it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation relating to the Shipowners' Liability and Mortgages and Liens Conventions as soon as possible. The immunity of State Owned Ships Convention requires, before legislation can be undertaken, a supplementary agreement which has not yet been signed by the Powers concerned.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the hon. Member intends to proceed with this legislation, and, if so, whether he will hurry up with it?

Mr. SMITH: There is no unnecessary delay.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: May I ask whether it is anticipated that the legislation to be introduced in another House is going to be confined to the second Measure of which the hon. Member spoke.

Mr. SMITH: That is what is contemplated.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TARIFFS.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement as to any answers he may have received from the Governments of France, Germany, and Italy in reply to the Government note asking for a reduction of tariffs on certain British imports into these countries?

Mr. GILLETT: No answers have yet been received from any of the Governments in question.

Major COLVILLE (for Mr. HANNON): 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the proposed tariff truce will be affected by recent German proposals to increase their
tariffs on foreign imports unless that country is allowed to increase its exports?

Mr. GILLETT: I am informed that the German Government contemplate taking powers to vary their import duties by administrative action. It is obviously impossible to indicate at present what effect any such proposals might have on the tariff truce.

Major COLVILLE: Does that not indicate that the tariff truce is ineffective?

IMPORTS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is still the policy of His Majesty's Government to exclude from the British market goods which are produced under conditions which violate the world's standards; and what steps the Government are taking to see that this policy is made effective?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I can add nothing to previous statements as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Member aware that the Prime Minister definitely indicated the policy as stated in the question; and what is the object of having the policy if there is no way of enforcing it? How can it be enforced?

Mr. SMITH: That is the policy in the last resort, but I think it was also stated that an attempt would be made to secure an international agreement in the first instance.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Sir W. BRASS: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what legislative action, if any, the Government proposes to take to implement the findings of the committee set up to inquire into the conditions in the cotton industry?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley), of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir W. BRASS: As nothing has resulted from the setting up of this Committee, is it not therefore the case that this promise was made to catch the votes of Lancashire at the last election?

Mr. SMITH: No, that is not the case; and the delay is due to the fact that we are awaiting information from the Lancashire people themselves.

RUSSIA.

Mr. SMITHERS: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the intensification of output by the syndicates in the various industries in the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, what steps His Majesty's Government is taking in this country to enable us to compete with the products of Russia in the world markets?

Mr. GILLETT: His Majesty's Government is giving constant attention to the position of export trade and is maintaining the closest relations with the industrial and commercial associations concerned in order to further the efforts being made to meet competition in world markets.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is it not the case that unless some definite action is taken soon the standard of wages and living in this country must inevitably be dragged down to the level of the standards in Russia?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Captain BOURNE: 70.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give the estimated variation during the current year in the numbers of contributory and non-contributory pensions, respectively, falling on the Vote for Old Age Pensions owing to successful new claims and deaths and revocations?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): It is estimated that in the course of the current financial year the number of contributory pensions falling on the Vote for Old Age Pensions will have increased by 102,000, and that the number of non-contributory pensions will have decreased by 30,000, giving a net increase in the number of pensions of both classes of 72,000. The estimated increase of 102,000 in the number of contributory pensions is made up of 140,000 new awards, offset by 38,000 cancellations by death or revocation; the estimated decrease of 30,000 in the number of non-contributory
pensions including blind pensions is made up of 110,000 cancellations by death or revocation, offset by 80,000 new awards.

EAST AFRICA (GOVERNMENT CARGO FREIGHTS).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH (for Mr. BOYCE): 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say how much was paid or payable during 1930 by the Crown Agents to the shipping companies in respect of Government cargoes to and from the British territories in East Africa, exclusive of lighterage and local charges; and what proportion of such sums was paid or payable to British shipping companies?

Dr. SHIELS: The total amount paid during 1930 by the Crown Agents for the Colonies to shipping companies in respect of Government cargoes from this country to the East African Dependencies, exclusive of landing charges, was £209,283. The whole of this amount, except for £25, was paid to British shipping companies. No information is available as to the amount paid in respect of Government cargoes from the East African Dependencies to this country, but such cargoes are much smaller, in freight and value, than Government cargoes sent to East Africa from this country.

KENYA (NATIVE AFFAIRS REPORT).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH (for Mr. BOYCE): 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the annual report for 1929 of the Native Affairs Department of Kenya was not made available to the public until the 26th January, 1931; and whether, in view of the fact that this report does not contain complicated statistics such as might have reasonably given cause for delay, and that most of the text could have been prepared during the year 1929, he will make representations to the Government of Kenya with a view to expediting the publication of such reports in future?

Dr. SHIELS: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. And
gallant Member for Chertsey (Sir P. Richardson) on the 29th January, of which I am sending him a copy. As regards the second part, my noble Friend will ask the Governor of Kenya to consider how far it is possible to expedite the rendering of future reports. On receipt of the reports in this country every endeavour will be made to ensure printing and publication with the least possible delay.

AIR FORCES (COMPARATIVE STATISTICS).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what are the establishments and total number of machines in their respective categories, bombers, general purpose and Army co-operation, and fighters, of the following countries: France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the United States of America and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics?

Mr. MONTAGUE: With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate the reply, which is rather long and contains figures in tabulated form, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

As regards the Royal Air Force, the present first-line establishment is approximately 790 aircraft; or, divided by categories—bombers and general purpose aircraft 348, Army co-operation machines 120, fighters 156, flying boats 25, Fleet Air Arm 141.

Owing to differences in statistical methods and to other factors such as fluctuations in strength, which occur from time to time, it is difficult to supply precisely comparable figures for the other countries specified in the question, but the following table, based on the latest information available, gives the approximate total figures:


Country.
First-line Strength.


France
1,320


Italy (including a temporary excess of about 100 aircraft over normal establishments)
1,100


United Stated of America
1,050


Union of Social Soviet Republics
1,000



(Estimated.)

Under the Treaty of Versailles the armed forces of Germany must not include any military or naval air forces.

The official information at my disposal does not enable me accurately to subdivide the above totals between the categories mentioned in the question, but the hon. and gallant Member will find some relevant information in the Armaments Year Book published by the League of Nations.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister if the Motion

standing in his name on the Order Paper in reference to the Business of the House relates only to the Navy Estimates?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that is so—to Item No. 1 under "Orders of the Day."

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 132.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1931.

MR. ALEXANDER'S STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
4.0 p.m.
In presenting the Naval Estimates last year, I made some reference to the difficulty which faces anyone dealing with Admiralty Estimates in a time of real financial stringency at the Exchequer. That difficulty, so far from being less, is greater this year than last, and I have no doubt that there are many who will be disappointed that in the Estimates that I now have to present the net saving over last year's figure is not more than £342,000. It must be remembered, however, that it is a very different task submitting Estimates this year compared with last year, when the figure arrived at fell to be compared with the Estimate of the Conservative Government in 1929. The net reduction shown in last year's main Estimate over the previous year was £4,126,000. This was only possible by very severe cuts, which of themselves made it improbable that anything beyond pruning this year would be possible, especially in the absence of any extraordinary factors. But in fact my greatest difficulty in the last few months has been to avoid being compelled to ask the House to vote a larger sum than in 1930, and I have endeavoured to make this point perfectly clear in the White Paper which has been in the hands of hon. Members since last week.
The net estimates are arrived at after allowing for Appropriations-in-Aid from all sources. This year I have to face a loss of such receipts of no less a sum than approximately £1,500,000. The principal items in respect of which this loss of receipts occurs are, first of all, the ending of the generous Malayan contribution to the cost of the Singapore Base; and I had to remind the House before that in dealing with the Singapore Base the late Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was very anxious to spend everybody's money but our own. We also had to face a very heavy loss in freights from the hiring of Admiralty tankers, due almost entirely, of course, to the trade depression and the completion of the refitting of the Chilean battleship "Almirante Latorre" and the consequent ending of receipts from that source. In connection with this last item, I should like to point out that this very large refit has given employment to several hundred men in the dockyard for over 18 months, and this contract has been valuable, too, in other ways, since it has not only given a large amount of employment in the country on contract orders for material, but has been beneficial in strengthening the ties between our two countries and our navies.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is this a British-built ship?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is the Chilean battleship "Almirante Latorre" that was disposed of to the Chilean Navy. The completion of the work, which has been most satisfactorily carried out, presented me with the problem of the employment in the future of the men who had been engaged upon this ship. In that connection I should like to say that there is no intention whatever that this should involve discharges to a figure below a level fixed by wastage. But this of course, left us with the problem of the expenditure to be incurred in the employment of these men, an employment which will be arranged on the proportion of new construction assigned to the dockyards and on arrears of repair work.
There are two other points which may be mentioned as having also militated against heavier reduction. In view of the reduced amount of new construction operating this year as a result of the cuts in the 1928 and 1929 programmes, it is not possible to exercise an overhead cut of the magnitude of that of last year, and I have had to allow for a reduction of no less than £600,000 in that figure, which will now stand at less than one-half of the overhead reduction made by my predecessor in 1929. I might add that another factor making this reduction in overhead cut necessary is, of course, that contractors are now far more prompt in the execution of orders, partly no doubt because of their lack of other work, so
that the large overhead reductions for delays that could formerly be made quite safely are no longer justified. The second point that militates against a larger reduction is the fact that the Non-Effective Vote continues to rise, and does so this year to the extent of £126,000. I often hear references to the size of the money Vote for the Navy, and references to the fact that this is spent on the fighting strength of the country. I do not think it is often realised that out of the total of a little over £51,000,000, almost £9,000,000 is in respect of the Non-Effective Vote, that is to say, £17 out of every £100 in the Navy Estimates is non-effective. I hope that my hon. Friends will bear that in mind. Mainly from these causes which I have outlined the gross Estimates at the outset were actually up by over £2,000,000, and in order, therefore, to secure the net reduction which I now submit to the House of £342,000, it has actually been necessary to find on the other side very little less than £2,500,000 of savings. I suggest that the fairest way to judge of the economy of my Estimate this year is to remember that comparing the gross figures of expenditure proposed for 1931 with the gross figures of expenditure in the Conservative Estimate of 1929, there is a reduction of nearly £5,500,000.
The House will, perhaps, like to have some details of how the reduction has been secured. First of all, the increased purchasing power of the pound has enabled us to save about £500,000 made up of £300,000 on account of lower prices and a reduction of £200,000 in Civil salaries, naval officers' pay and men's marriage allowance. Secondly, there are the reductions which may be described as Naval reductions. Perhaps the most important of these is the heavy reduction of personnel which will commence on 1st April at a figure of 93,650, which is 350 below the figure for next month which we anticipated a year ago. This is largely owing to the London Naval Treaty, and the House will observe from the Estimate that the figure will fall still further during the year to 91,840 on 31st March, 1932. The average numbers borne, on which our figures are based, will be less in 1931 by 8,648, as compared with 1928. This represents a reduction in expenditure on personnel in the coming year of £1,500,000, compared with 1928, or a
total saving over the three years of £3,000,000. We are already enjoying two-thirds of this saving, and the reduction next year will amount to about £400,000. Most of this is due to wastage, but a small proportion is due to the new lieutenant-commander retirement scheme which aims at removing a surplus in that rank by offering retired pay before the normal age at which it can be earned. Not more than 150 of such officers are likely to be affected.
Perhaps it will be convenient to mention at this point a concession which has been made in the case of warrant officers. It has been the practice to adjust the pay of warrant officers, either married or widowers, on promotion to that rank, in certain cases where pecuniary loss might otherwise be entailed owing to the cessation of marriage and other allowances drawn as ratings. This arrangement has now been extended so as to take into account the messing contribution of 1s. a day for which warrant officers are liable, and the pay of the officers concerned will therefore be increased with effect as from 1st December last, by a sum not exceeding that amount, subject to the maximum of their rank not being exceeded. The annual expense of this concession is approximately £5,000.
Some saving has been possible on the materiel side due to the reduction of Fleet units consequent upon the London Naval Treaty. I refer specifically to the "Iron Duke" class battleships and the battle cruiser "Tiger." The actual cash saving compared with last year under this head is, of course, not large because it is not proposed to carry out discharges at the dockyards, but I might mention that the scrapping of these ships in advance of 1936 will also save us from having to spend a large sum of money on their refits.
On new construction, the coming year will show a reduction in expenditure of about £250,000 as a result of the policy which was confirmed by the London Naval Treaty. This is mainly on the old programmes and arises from the cuts made by the present Government in the building programme of 1928 and 1929. I would emphasise, however, that the reduction effected under this head of new construction as compared with the 1928 figure is over £4,000,000. The balance of the amount required to show a net
saving of £342,000 has only been obtained by a rigid pruning of the Estimates of all the Departments of the Admiralty. When all these facts are taken into account, and when the House also remembers that we are to a smaller extent every year able to utilise the surplus war stocks in relief of current expenditure, I believe the extent to which economy has been exercised in the preparation of these Estimates will be appreciated in all parts of the House.
It will be seen from page 11 of the White Paper which I circulated with the Estimates that the new programme of construction for 1931 provides for the following new ships to be commenced:

Two Cruisers of "Leander' Class.
One Cruiser of about 5,000 tons.
One Leader and eight Destroyers.
Four Sloops.
Three Submarines.
One shallow draught Gunboat.
One Mining Tender for "Vernon."
One Gate Vessel for Defence Booms.

I might, of course, emphasise that this programme represents nothing more than a normal annual replacement programme within the new limited tonnage set out in Part III of the London Naval Treaty. Following the normal Admiralty practice, the orders for this programme would not, in any case, be placed until the first quarter of 1932. While I am on that, I might say that I have been pressed by the shipbuilding industry on more than one occasion recently that, in view of the depressed state of that industry, we should anticipate naval building of the next few years; but both from the point of view of the financial position and from the fact that such an expedition of naval building would prejudice the negotiations for disarmament, it is impossible for me to accede to such a request. While, as I have pointed out, the programme now announced is merely the normal instalment of building under the London Naval Treaty, we all, I am sure, hope that further progress will be made in agreed reductions at the Disarmament Conference at Geneva; and in that event the Government will still be able to cancel, or postpone or vary the different items in the programme now announced. The estimated total cost of the programme, if it is ultimately ordered in full, is a little over £500,000 less than the 1930 programme recently ordered.
The House will probably like to know the Admiralty's reasons for including a 6-inch gun cruiser of 5,000 tons in the 1931 building programme. During the last 10 years, I think the House knows, we have been building cruisers of large size to make up a deficiency in vessels suitable for all operations due to the War-time policy of building only small cruisers for the special requirements of the North Sea. It is essential, however, that the smaller type of cruisers should not waste away altogether as time goes on, and with a view to spreading the replacement of as many as are needed over a suitable period the Admiralty propose to commence the construction of a vessel of the smaller type in 1931. The design of this ship follows generally the design of the larger "Leander" class, but on account of her smaller size, her armament will be less and the scale of protection will be slightly reduced; the machinery installation will also be of a rather lighter design. In general seagoing qualities she will compare well with the "Leander" class.
Before dealing with the agreement which has been reached between France and Italy, I should like to refer to one or two matters of general interest.

Sir B. FALLE: Where will these cruisers be built?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am coming to that. First of all, there is a good deal of criticism from time to time as to the Admiralty staffs. In this connection, however, it must be remembered that there is a general feeling against the pre-War conditions of heavy overtime being worked, and we are now required—and rightly required—to conduct a close scrutiny of all such overtime. It must also not be forgotten that at the present time there is a large volume of work always to be met in connection with the continuous negotiations and discussions on Disarmament. In fact, it takes as much administrative work arranging reductions of naval strength in step with other Powers as it takes in order to arrange for taking part in a naval armaments race. Moreover, the post-War systems dealing much more fully with such questions as victualling, clothing, marriage allowances and general welfare conferences have very largely added to
the clerical and administrative work. When you remember the wider provision made for pensions and compensation, and the way this work has expanded, it will be understood how the administrative work is increasing. Nevertheless, I am glad to be able to report that there was a net reduction in the Admiralty civil staff compared with last year of 30. As I am referring to the Admiralty staff, I should like to mention the great loss we have suffered in the premature death of the late librarian, Mr. W. G. Perrin. He had a distinguished career, as is evidenced by his connection with the Navy Records Society, the Society for Nautical Research and the new National Maritime Museum. Mr. Perrin retained the respect of all with whom he came into contact, and his place is difficult to fill.
As regards the dockyards, it is interesting to compare the position as estimated for the coming year with that of 1914. Whilst the total expenditure on shipbuilding and repairs is less by £8,500,000, or over 33 per cent. as compared with 1914, the figure for dockyard work shows an increase, and the number of men employed has fallen by only just over 3,000, or less than 5 per cent. compared to 1914.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What month in 1914?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Probably in March; I have not the actual month. This is, of course, due to the greater proportion of construction work allocated to the dockyards. The 1931 programme, to which I have already referred, will, if ordered in its entirety, be allocated as follows:

At Portsmouth—1 cruiser, 1 leader and 1 tender for "Vernon."
At Devonport—2 sloops.
At Chatham—1 cruiser, 1 submarine.
By contract—1 cruiser, 8 destroyers, 2 submarines, 2 sloops, 1 gunboat, 1 boom defence vessel.
The 1930 allocation of contract work recently announced provided a wide distribution of work over the whole country. I think it may be said that the numbers of employées in the dockyards are now more or less stabilised except for a slight falling tendency by wastage. Establishment vacancies are
now being filled at the rate of one in six instead of one in eight as previously. I am very glad to say that during 1930 it has not been found necessary to discharge any dockyard apprentices on completion of their apprenticeship as we had reluctantly to do in previous years. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) is very persistent in his inquiries on this matter, and I am sure that he is very glad to hear that it has not been found necessary to discharge any dockyard apprentices. The decision last year to grant a week's leave with pay to the dockyard industrial employées was carried out by closing the yards for a week in August. Certain classes of workpeople who had already enjoyed the privilege of annual leave were granted an increase in the number of days of leave.
Progress is being made with the revision of the accounting system of the dockyards, which aims at more economical production. The clocking-in system in connection with this is now being inaugurated at Devonport, and I estimate that it will be in full operation by the end of May. At Portsmouth we have been able in connection with this system to devise a much more satisfactory method than formerly of paying wages which has been much appreciated by the employés. That may seem to the House a small thing, but it is not a small matter when it is considered that under the old system, in a dockyard covering a large acreage, all the men were gathered at one point, perhaps at the opposite end of the yard from which they usually left to go to their homes. Under the new system, a man's pay is handed to him at the clock on the job which he is leaving. I am glad to say that we have had a great many expressions of thanks from the workpeople in consequence of the change.
A good deal of very useful experimental and research work has been proceeding during the year. I would mention, among others, deep diving experiments, the further successful experiments with the Davis submerged escape apparatus for submarines, which has now been adopted throughout the Fleet, research in economy of fuel consumption, new types of engines and the use for Fleet purposes of oil produced from coal. On the latter point I do not propose to make
any lengthy comment, as there is a Motion on Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to which my hon. Friend the Civil Lord, who has made a special study of the subject, will reply; but I can state here generally that tests which have been carried out in His Majesty's ships of fuel oil produced from British coal have, generally speaking, been very satisfactory from a technical point of view. The economic aspect of the question, however, is another matter.
The Fleet, as usual, has done a great deal of most useful general work in addition to police work all over the world, notably in the Far East and in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. Very useful rescue work has been done, and I might mention especially the rescue of the crew of the "Hedwig" and the great services rendered in New Zealand at the time of the recent earthquake by His Majesty's Ship "Veronica" and the New Zealand Squadron, of which we are all proud. It is opportune also to refer to the visit of the aircraft carrier "Eagle" with the destroyer "Achates" to Buenos Aires this month. They arrived yesterday for a stay of three weeks, in connection with the British Empire Exhibition which is to be opened there on Saturday by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. His Royal Highness travelled in a naval aeroplane on the last stage of his journey from San Antonio to Buenos Aires. The "Eagle" carries types of British aircraft with which flying displays are being given at the exhibition. Rio de Janeiro is to be visited on the homeward voyage. There is every reason to hope that these visits will do much to stimulate British trade with South America.
The hydrographical work—one of the most valuable of the many peaceful functions which the British Navy performs—has proceeded with added efficiency now that echo-sounding apparatus has been installed in the surveying ships. I am glad to be able to report a very good bill of health for the Navy. There were no large epidemics in 1930 and as far as I am at present able to judge from the statistical returns, the incidence of disease was generally less than in the previous year.
A large number of questions have been put to me since I have been at the
Admiralty concerning the promotion of men from the lower deck, and the general system of the entry of officers into the Royal Navy. As indicated in the White Paper I appointed two committees to deal with these two questions, that dealing with promotion from the lower deck under the chairmanship of Vice-Admiral Larken and the one dealing with the entry of officers under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Sir E. Bennett), to whom, I should like to say, I am very much indebted for the time and care which he has given to the matter. I hope to receive the reports of these committees very shortly, and there will be no delay in giving consideration to their recommendations.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish them?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member must not draw me too far, but I will consider that matter. The discipline and general service of the Fleet has been well and efficiently maintained. It is true that there was one unfortunate incident which led to a court of inquiry and court martial, but this incident has only thrown into relief the generally good conduct and discipline of our great Naval Service. I would like to compliment both officers and men on the great reduction in the number of trials by court martial which have been necessary. The numbers are now so small that variations must be expected from year to year, but taking the average over the last three years, only one man in about 5,700 was tried, as compared with one in about 2,250 in the years 1922 to 1924, and one man in about 850 for the years 1911 and 1912. The number of summary punishments has also fallen very considerably, the latest return showing, in proportion to the numbers borne, not more than half the number in 1911 and 1912, and appreciably less in the number for the years 1922 to 1924. I should like to take this opportunity of publicly expressing my thanks to both officers and men in the Service for another year of very excellent service. I should like to express my thanks also to the Admiralty staff, both Naval and Civil, for their great help to me personally, without which help the large economies which I have submitted to the House could not possibly have been secured.
I now turn to the results of the conversations which have recently taken place between France and Italy and ourselves on the question of the limitation of Naval armaments, and am very glad to have the opportunity of reporting to the House the great progress made. The House will remember that at the London Naval Conference while a large measure of all-round agreement was secured on technical questions, it was not found possible at that time to settle agreed strengths of the French and Italian Fleets in the manner in which settlement was arrived at by the United States of America, Japan and ourselves in Part III of the Treaty, and on the conclusion of the Treaty, the Conference adjourned on 15th April, 1930, to enable negotiations to take place between the French and Italian Governments with a view to the settlement of the difficulties.
Last year conversations were resumed between the experts of those Governments, who were afterwards joined in by British experts. These conversations continued until they had obviously reached a stage at which the intervention of responsible Ministers was both necessary and urgent. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and myself therefore left on 23rd February for Paris to discuss with the French Government the position which had been reached. During the evening of the 23rd and on the 24th February we had meetings with M. Briand and M. Dumont, the French Minister of Marine, at which we reached a provisional basis of agreement for submission to the Italian Government. We left for Rome on the evening of 24th February, and on the 26th and 27th had discussions with Signor Mussolini, Signor Grandi, the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Admiral Sirinanni, the Italian Minister of Marine. Late at night on the 27th we reached agreement in principle, subject to the approval of the other Governments concerned, and after a further exchange of views in Paris upon our return there on 1st March, we were able to announce that complete agreement had been reached. It is most gratifying to be able to say that in these arduous and often difficult negotiations the utmost good will and determination to reach a settlement were shown by the
Governments of both France and Italy, and we were very much impressed by the sincere desire of these two Governments to co-operate with His Majesty's Government in our work of consolidating peace in Europe and of achieving a real measure of armaments limitation and reduction.
The terms of the settlement arrived at were expressly made dependent upon the approval of all the Powers who are signatories of the London Naval Treaty. A White Paper has been issued through the Vote Office this afternoon in which the bases of agreement arrived at are printed, and hon. Members will be able to follow what I have to say from that White Paper. I come first of all to the question of Capital Ships. The House will observe that, without prejudice to a general revision of the capital ship tonnages established by the Washington Treaty, it is proposed that the total tonnage in this category accorded to France and Italy—each of them—shall be raised from 175,000 to 181,000 tons. I must point out, however, that this slight increase will not in itself give rise to any additional new construction during the period of the agreement, but will permit France to retain an existing capital ship. Under the Washington Treaty France could retain 208,114 tons of capital ships, this total including three old vessels amounting to 52,791 tons. Of this total 155,323 tons were replaceable by new construction which might total 175,000 tons, an increase of 19,677 tons. The three old capital ships that I have referred to were not included in the replacement calculations and could be retained indefinitely. By the loss of the battleship "France" at sea a few years ago the French total existing replaceable tonnage was reduced to 133,134, and France was thus able to build ships to a total tonnage of 41,866 without any scrapping.
Under Article I of the London Treaty France could not build during the period of the Treaty more than 70,000 tons of replacement capital ships. She desired to build within that tonnage three ships of 23,333 tons each. On building two such ships—and the House will observe that only two are to be built during the period of the agreement—she would ex-
ceed her right to build without scrapping by 4,800 tons, and if she built a third ship she would exceed that right by 28,133 tons. If France then scrapped one of her existing replaceable ships, she would still exceed her right to build by 5,944 tons. But, on the other hand, if she were to scrap two ships instead of one, she would, owing to Article I of the London Treaty, be prevented from reaching her full allowance of tonnage under the Washington Treaty by as much as 16,245 tons. This explains the necessity for increasing her tonnage allowance by 6,000 to 181,000; but I should add that in return for this concession France undertakes to scrap by December, 1936, two of the three old battleships which under the Washington Treaty are not replaceable. The House Rill notice that under the bases of agreement France and Italy will complete only two capital ships before December, 1936. I have explained the procedure that France will follow, and need only mention that Italy will scrap approximately 16,820 tons of average first-class cruisers on the completion of each of her two ships.
One very important point which we discussed in Paris and Rome, and on which I am glad we obtained agreement, was the reduction of the calibre of the gun of the proposed new capital ships from 13 inches to 12 inches. The House will remember that at the London Naval Conference His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom proposed that the maximum tonnage of the capital ship should be very substantially reduced and also that the maximum calibre of the gun should be reduced from 16 inches to 12 inches. It was not possible at the London Conference to secure agreement on this proposal for reduction, and the whole question of the future of the capital ship was adjourned until the next conference in 1935. The laying down in the interim of capital ships to which France and Italy were entitled under the London Treaty with a gun of 13 inches would have been most unfortunate from the point of view of the discussions that will take place on the general question later on. I desire personally to express my appreciation of the action of the French Government in making this reduction after the French Minister of Marine had publicly announced his intention of building a 13-inch gun ship. In return His
Majesty's Government will give the French Government a written assurance that they themselves favour a reduction of the capital ship gun to a maximum calibre of 12 inches and a substantial reduction in the existing maximum displacement or 35,000 tons.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it possible to give any sort of figure of how much reduction is proposed in this enormous figure of 35,000 tons?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Member will know that at the London Conference His Majesty's Government did propose a reduction of 10,000 tons in the size of the ships to 25,000 tons, but even on that we could not get agreement, and the whole question must come up for new discussion at the next conference.

Mr. ROSS: May I ask—

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think it more advisable that hon. Members should hear the terms of the Treaty and then they can put as many questions as they like. In the case of aircraft carriers the agreement between France and Italy that each may build 34,000 tons in this category is within the limit imposed by the Washington Treaty and therefore calls for no comment. The total figures in this category would be 54,196 tons for France and 34,000 tons for Italy. I come next to what is known as category "A" cruisers, in other words, those armed with 8-inch guns. It is very satisfactory to note that no further construction in this category is to take place by France and Italy after the completion of their 1930 programmes, and this will mean that each will rest upon the strength of 70,000 tons of under age ships in this category.
I now come to category "B" cruisers, that is, cruisers with a gun not exceeding 6.1 inches, and destroyers. By terms tentatively agreed upon at the London Naval Conference and now embodied in the draft Disarmament Convention drawn up by the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament at Geneva, France and Italy are able to treat these two classes of ships as being in one category. In this category France may have in December, 1936, if she builds to her maximum, rather more than 198,000 tons of ships for replacement, whilst Italy will have about 151,360 tons.
It is anticipated, however, that the French Government will in addition possess in 1936 a large over age tonnage in this category. We made it quite clear during the negotiations that the temporary retention of this tonnage confers on France no claim to its ultimate replacement, and hon. Members will observe that the reservation included in the White Paper under the heading of C. (b) adequately safeguards this position. It says:
It is understood that the present arrangement establishes no permanent ratio in any category of ship as between the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, France and Italy. In particular, no precedent is being created for the final solution of the question whether, and if so in what manner, tonnage remaining over age on the 31st December, 1936, may ultimately be replaced.
The House will also notice that an extension of the life for destroyers has been provided for in paragraph B, subparagraph (b). In that connection I would say that the life of 12 years for destroyers referred to in the London Naval Treaty applied only to vessels which were laid down before 1921. We have always maintained that the normal effective life of a destroyer should be not less than 16 years, and the figure of 12 years for certain destroyers was adopted in the London Naval Treaty to suit the convenience of other signatories.
Turning to the submarine category, the figure for France in 1936 is not to exceed 81,989 tons, whilst that of Italy will not exceed 52,700 tons. The French figure is agreed to on our part only subject to a reservation I shall refer to in a moment or two. I should explain that the tonnage I have mentioned for France is the actual tonnage which she has built and building in submarines at the moment which will be under age on 31st December this year. The French Government were unwilling to rest on a lower figure, although, may I say that if it had not been for our visit the figure would have been much higher. Both the French and Italian Governments, however, agreed not to include any submarines in the 1931 programme and not to lay down any further submarine tonnage before 1933; and therefore any provision for new submarine construction made in the 1932
programme for construction in 1933 will be subject to the decisions reached as regards submarine tonnages by the World Disarmament Conference in 1932. We have cleared away the obstacles to free and full and frank discussion of the whole question at the Disarmament Conference. I should further explain that in arriving at the figure of 52,700 tons for Italy provision has been made for this to include rather more than 5,000 tons of average ships which are not replaceable.
I must emphasise the point which we included in the bases of agreement that we consider the figure for submarines submitted by France as being far too high, especially in relation to our destroyer figure of 150,000 tons in London Naval Treaty, and it was therefore necessary to make a reservation that in the event of a satisfactory solution of this submarine figure problem not proving possible in 1932, the right of the British Commonwealth of Nations to increase their destroyer figure under Article 21 of the London Naval Treaty is maintained. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind. that whilst from the point of view of His Majesty's Government the figure arrived at in the submarine category is the least satisfactory part of the agreement, the figure of 81,989 tons now accepted by the French Government represents a very considerable reduction upon their original programme, and it is for this reason that, whilst reserving our powers under Article 21 if necessary after the Geneva Conference, we are prepared to notify the other signatory Powers of the London Naval Treaty that, pending the general revision of the naval question at Geneva, we shall not have recourse to Article 21.
It only remains to say on the actual terms of the agreement that, as set out in paragraph C (a) of the bases of agreement in the White Paper, France and Italy accept so far as they are concerned those provisions of Part III of the London Naval Treaty which are of general application and which, do not conflict with the provisions of the present arrangement. In this connection I would say that conversations are now proceeding between the interested Governments as to the best method of formally associating the agreement arrived at with
the work of the London Naval Conference; but I think I should say that it may not be possible to insert the agreement into Part III of the London Naval Treaty until the result of the General Disarmament Conference in 1932 is known.
I am happy to say, in regard to the arrangements contemplated in the bases of agreement, that we have received intimations of their general concurrence from the United States of America and Japan. From all the members of the British Commonwealth who were represented at the London Naval Conference we have also received general approval, and indeed many congratulatory messages. Perhaps I may be permitted to add that we have indeed received from them many congratulatory references.
The work of the London Naval Conference had as its object the limitation and reduction of naval armaments but, although great progress was made in this direction by Part III of the London Naval Treaty, there was always the danger that lack of agreement between France and Italy would lead to a competitive race to which other Powers could not have been oblivious, and in respect of which adequate safeguards would have been bound to be taken. Thus we might have reverted to a position comparable to that preceding the Great War, and it is surely a matter for profound thankfulness that the agreement now arrived at puts an end to competitive building in all categories of naval vessels. Moreover, the result of the agreement will be that the actual amount of tonnage to be constructed during the period of the agreement shows a great reduction on the construction which had been contemplated prior to our concluding the agreement, and it may therefore surely be said that the agreement marks a very real advance towards a general measure of disarmament.
Perhaps the House will also permit me to emphasise what we all hope may be the fortunate results of this agreement in the political sphere. The solution of the Naval difficulties between France and Italy removes what has been admittedly a troublesome element in their mutual relations. Whilst this will undoubtedly create a much better atmosphere in which
to discuss other questions arising between the two Powers concerned, the settlement of the Naval question must be taken as having greatly improved the prospects of the general Disarmament Conference at Geneva next year. It has, I think we can say with confidence, created a much more favourable atmosphere for the work of international co-operation for the maintenance of European peace and prosperity in which His Majesty's Government, in connection with all the nations of Europe, are equally and vitally concerned.

Mr. AMERY: I think every section of the House will join with me in congratulating the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Foreign Secretary upon the part which they have played in bridging over the difficulty between Italy and France. To that extent I think our congratulations are unreserved. But from the point of view of these Estimates I think we are bound to consider how far in playing the valuable part of the honest broker we have not been ourselves paying something in security for that service. I could not help wondering, as the First Lord gave the figures—undoubtedly figures of reduction from the very high standard which France and Italy had previously fixed—whether those were figures which we should have brought ourselves to face at the London Conference less than a year ago, and particularly with regard to submarines. The figures are 81,900 tons for French submarines and 52,700 tons for Italian submarines, as against a total figure for the whole of the British Empire of 52,700 tons. I think this creates a very unsatisfactory situation, in view of our limited tonnage of destroyers, keeping in view also the great pre-dominance in the air which France enjoys at any rate in the neighbourhood of her own coast.
It seems to me that instead of postponing our claim to have recourse to Article 21, we should at once have revised the figures, at any rate of our destroyers, and to some extent of our cruisers, to meet the potential menace of these really immense submarine fleets. On this point I do not think we have been doing the right thing, not only from the point of view of our immediate security, but even from the point of view of disarmament. Even from that point of view our acquiescence in a further
measure of unilateral disarmament may well prove not to have been the best course in the interests of disarmament as a whole. Only yesterday the Secretary of State for War, speaking of the experience of this country during the last 10 or 11 years in regard to reductions in the Army, and comparing it with the position of other countries, said:
They must conclude that the policy of unilateral disarmament has not achieved its object. It is impossible to examine the figures, and, looking facts in the face, to conclude that any foreign country has followed the example set by this country. I do not want to make invidious distinctions, but I ask anybody who takes an interest in the question of disarmament to note carefully the condition of affairs as shown in the League of Nations books on the subject, and then I think there can be no question at all that the enormous reductions which have obtained in this country have not been reproduced in other countries. Disarmament in this country, instead of being a lead to foreign nations has not lead to that desirable result."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1931; col. 1021, Vol. 249.]
The First Lord himself declared last year that unilateral disarmament is no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government. The truth is that ever since the War this country, especially in regard to its Navy, has continually followed the policy of unilateral disarmament. We scrapped something like 2,250,000 tons of combatant ships within three or four years immediately after the War. In order to pave the way for the London negotiations we had a unilateral reduction of our standard of cruiser strength from 70 to 50. What justification there was for that, when we look at the immensely varied services that have to be furnished and met by our cruisers, I have never yet discovered. At any rate, as far as cruisers are concerned, what we did was to carry out unilateral disarmament ourselves in order to facilitate unilateral increase by others to bring up their cruiser standard to our strength. Here, again, in this agreement, much as we applaud its general outline, I cannot help feeling is yet a further step in this tendency, and I believe it is a mistaken tendency, to think that we can help the general cause of disarmament by disarming ourselves and lowering the standard of our security.
I now turn to the actual armaments which are contemplated by the Government in the Estimates. How far do the Estimates maintain the standard of equal disarmament set by the London Treaty? How far do they fulfil the pledge which the Prime Minister gave in 1924 and which the First Lord of the Admiralty reaffirmed during the discussion of last year's Estimate that the Government are not going to allow the Navy to disappear by wastage from the bottom? I would like to go very briefly into the figures of construction which are contemplated by the Government in order to see how far it represents a fulfilment of the policy agreed upon in the London Treaty. I understand that the present position is that the Government intend to repeat this year's programme in successive years and that we shall have three cruisers, a destroyer flotilla, and three submarines laid down every year. If that is the policy of the Government, then it is quite clear that we shall not by 1936 be in a position to have anything like a proper proportion of under age cruisers. The total number of our existing cruisers is 53, and 29 of them will be over age by 1936. Allowing for a continuance of the present programme and subsequent programmes, we shall at the very most at the end of 1936 have 35 under age cruisers completed, and we shall not have more than 31 or 32 actually in commission.

Mr. ALEXANDER: What life is the right hon. Gentleman taking for the cruisers?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I was taking the life of the cruisers in the Treaty, that is to say, 16 years for cruisers completed before 1st January, 1920, and 20 years for cruisers completed after 31st December, 1919. Those are the age limits of the Treaty. Those are the standards by which other Powers are modernising and bringing their building up to date. That figure of cruisers for 1926, at least 15 short of our requirements, is not a figure forced upon us by the 91,000 tons overhead limit. It is something, as far as I can calculate, between 18,000 and 19,000 tons short. Consequently, within the limitation imposed upon us in that respect by the London Treaty, we ought to be completing at least three cruisers
more before 1936. In other words, there ought to be at least one more cruiser added to last year's, this year's, and next year's programme. It must be remembered that we have the largest commitments in the world. We have 80,000 miles of sea routes to protect, guarding the arrival of our daily bread and the sustenance of our industries, and every reduction in the total number of cruisers reduces the cruisers available for commerce protection out of all measure. When our standard was 70 cruisers, it was fixed by the consideration that 25 was the minimum requirement for the battle fleet, and 45 the minimum requirement for commerce protection on the high seas. By reducing our standard from 70 to 50, we cut down our provision for Empire sea routes, not in that ratio, but in the ratio of from 45 to 25, and if we are going to be 15 or 19 up-to-date cruisers short by 1936, our provision of under-age sea-going effective cruisers which can hold their own in protecting our commerce will be reduced to the merest handful.
I am not sure, however, that the cruiser situation is at all the most unsatisfactory part of our position. I am not sure whether the position in respect of destroyers, destroyer leaders, and submarines is not very much graver, and especially graver since the announcement we have heard this afternoon. The London Treaty sets an overhead total limit for this country of 150,000 tons in destroyers and leaders—enough to provide 12 flotillas of one leader and eight destroyers apiece. At this moment we have 146 altogether, of which only 61 are under age according to the age limit fixed by the Treaty. It may be that the age limit could be reasonably lengthened somewhat. If so, why not lengthen it for others as well as for ourselves? This figure will come down to 33 under age next year, and by 1936 it will be under 60. The figure, as far as I can work it out, is 59, or barely half our actual requirements—our minimum figure under the London Treaty. On the top of that, if we are to meet, not the Escalator Clause, not the new potential menace of submarine fleets in narrow waters, but to meet the position as we saw it at the time of the Treaty of London, we should lay down two
squadrons a year, and not one squadron only.

Mr. ALEXANDER: May I point out that the last Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, built no destroyers for years, and, in the year in which we came in, they had only proposed to lay down one flotilla a year, so that they could not possibly have been in the position which he is now advocating.

Mr. AMERY: I am not prepared to admit at all that we were not considering the destroyer question as well as the cruiser question. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first step which his Government took when they came into office was to cut down by four our provision of destroyers in the 1928 programme. In that programme a leader, three destroyers and two submarines were cut out, and I think a similar reduction was also made, though not in destroyers, in the 1929 programme; and the right hon. Gentleman has no right at all to assume that the beginning we were making in respect of the completion and re-establishment of our destroyer fleets would not have continued if we had been in office. After all, the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that destroyers do not take as long as cruisers or capital ships to construct, and it is only at this moment that there has begun the very heavy drop in under-age destroyers. As I have pointed out, while the figure is 61 under the London Treaty age limit at this moment, it will be 33 next year. It is now and in the last two years that fresh destroyer construction has been required, and in the next few years more will be required. These figures, supported by the great authority of Lord Jellicoe in the House of Lords in last year's discussions, confirm the view I take that in the years now ahead of us it is two squadrons and not one squadron a year that we should be laying down.
There is another point that is worth commenting upon, and that is the inferiority of our leaders in size and power to those of our neighbours across the narrow seas. We have at the present moment 16 leaders, of which 13 will be over age by 1936, and, allowing for new construction, we shall by 1936 only have seven or eight leaders within the Treaty
age, and therefore at the height of their efficiency. I do not say that the others will not still be of some service, but they will not be in the prime of their efficiency. As compared with that figure, France, subject to any modification that is made by the present agreement, has, building and projected, 31 leaders, all of them except one between 2,100 and 2,560 tons, as compared with our leaders whose maximum size is 1,500 tons. That is a serious discrepancy, and one which it is impossible with any reasonable consideration for naval security to ignore.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the projected figure?

Mr. AMERY: Even if it is true that some of those vessels have now dropped out, the French have still a large number of leaders which are altogether, as far as regards tonnage, speed and power, in a different class from our leaders. To turn to the submarine position, there again we are not living up to the limit set by the London Treaty. The process of unilateral sag is continuing all the time. The tonnage fixed for us is 52,700 tons, representing presumably about 55 vessels of the present tonnage. We have 59 actually at present, representing a total of 56,000 tons. Next year we shall have only 49 submarines under age, and in 1936, if the present programme continues in subsequent years, we shall have 39. By 1936, on the present calculations, we are likely to be from 13,000 to 14,000 tons short of the London Treaty figure. It seems to me that all through in this matter tine tendency is to cut down unilaterally in order to make an agreement possible, and, whenever agreement has been arrived at, then to cut down still further unilaterally for the sake of economy. I cannot conceive that that is a wise policy, or that it is in fact a policy which is going to contribute to the cause of peace.
May I now turn briefly to certain other points on the Estimates? The First Lord drew attention to the fact that the very remarkable reduction in expenditure on construction in recent years has been almost entirely due to a reduction in the work given outside the dockyards, and that the dockyards have been kept, subject to wastage, in a condition which has avoided heavy discharges. That is a
policy which naturally would be approved of in all quarters of the House, but we approve of it only on the assumption that care is taken that full efficiency of work in the dockyards is maintained. I should like to ask the First Lord whether in this matter the former practice of asking for tenders before work is given to the dockyards has been followed, and also whether the increased efficiency that we secured in the dockyards through piecework has been maintained, or whether there has not in fact been—and the figures seem to me a little to indicate it—a making of work at the expense of efficiency.
To turn from the men in the dockyards to something which is even more vital to the efficiency of the Navy, that is to say, the men serving in the ships themselves, there again the First Lord congratulated himself on the great savings that we are enjoying. I am not sure that those who have left the Service enjoy them quite so much. Something like 8,600 men have been reduced since 1928. A part of that reduction is due, of course, to the disappearance of the Iron Dukes in consequence of the Naval Treaty, but that cannot account for anything like the whole of the reduction. I should like to ask the First Lord how far, with these reductions, is really adequate provision made for training courses and for the crossing of reliefs between the various stations, which must always occupy a very large number of men? In the same connection there is a figure which I confess fills me with misgiving. Nothing is more important than the element of long-service trained personnel in the Navy—the element that comes in in boyhood and provides the very backbone of our ratings. I have noticed that in the number of boys serving at sea there has been a reduction out of all proportion to the general reduction in the strength of the Navy. The figure, which in 1929 stood at 2,077, is now only 969. That does, at any rate on the face of it—no doubt the First Lord will be able to give us some explanation—look like an undue economy in one region where it is particularly vital not to indulge in false economy, but to secure the men of the future, whom you cannot replace in a moment.
Another point to which the First Lord did not draw attention in his speech, but
with which he has dealt in his statement, is the fact that we have now three carriers afloat and in commission, that four catapult sets have been fitted to cruisers, and that eleven more are to be fitted in the immediate future. But, in contrast with that satisfactory provision, the provision of aeroplanes to make use of these things is reduced to one flight instead of two flights. Can the First Lord assure us that the new provision is really such that it will be fully made use of by the aeroplanes with the Fleet; and can he tell us the comparable figures for aeroplanes with the American Fleet? There, again, it is essential that our London Treaty standard should be kept up to the full. It should not be a mere excuse for cutting the figures down still further. Certainly, as far as one can judge, the American figures of personnel, making every sort of deduction, are much higher than ours. The Japanese figures at 80,000 are getting very close to ours; certainly, they are much larger in proportion to the tonnage of their Fleet. So, too, in aeroplanes. Such figures as I have seen incline me to doubt gravely whether in that respect either we are living up to the terms of the London Treaty.
Another question is oil fuel, not only the provision of the fuel but of the tanks, without which no fuel can be stored in an emergency. Since 1929 our figures of the purchase of oil fuel have come down from just under £1,400,000 to just over £1,100,000. That is, no doubt, in part due to a reduction in prices, and is so far a welcome reduction, but I cannot help, from my recollection of the figures, surmising that there is a good deal more than is accounted for by the reduction in prices. The House is entitled to know whether that reduction has been made at the expense of the efficiency of the Navy in cutting down training work, or whether it means that the comparatively small tonnage put aside to reserve in recent years has been still further cut down. I notice that, as far as tank provision is concerned, only £16,000 figures in these Estimates, which I gather means the abandonment, or the indefinite postponement of the second big instalment of tanks at Singapore.
I also notice that the £700,000 programme at Ceylon has been cut down by something like £260,000. There, again,
we should be glad to have fuller information as to the extent to which the First Lord is keeping that absolutely vital provision of oil abreast of our needs. It is no use having a Navy if it cannot move, and it is no use professing to have equality in cruisers and other ships with the United States if they have an unlimited supply of modern fuel which will enable them to move round the world, and we are cramped and limited in every direction. Naturally, I should like anything that could be done to enable us to be self-supporting in the matter of oil fuel out of coal, and any money that is spent, not by a reduction of other Naval Votes, but spent as a national contribution through the accumulation of naval stores to help the solution of a problem which may solve matters essential to our general well being. We should welcome anything the First Lord tells us that he is prepared to do in that direction.
We all welcome the contribution which the First Lord and the Foreign Secretary have been able to make towards mutual disarmament in Europe. We hope it may lead to a still further scheme, not of unilateral, but of multilateral and equal disarmament on land, on sea, and in the air at Geneva. We believe such disarmament makes a valuable contribution to the cause of peace. But it would be a great error if we took the view that disarmament by itself is the main security against the danger of war. There are occasions when the competition of armaments may accelerate war, but there are other occasions when the possession of armaments in the hands of the peace-loving is the best assurance against war. It would be perfectly arguable to say that the armaments of Europe during the period that preceded the Great War postponed that calamity rather than accelerated it. That terrible calamity was due to the real factor which most often creates war, and which we have to face in this House if we wish to preserve peace, the clash of irreconcilable ideals and ideas. That War arose largely because the Serbs and the Yugo-Slavs wished to create a great Yugoslavia at the expense of the Austrian Empire, and because the rulers and a great part of the citizens of that Empire wished to preserve it intact. There you have an issue which disarmament by itself will not solve. If Austria had been weaker,
war with Serbia would have arisen earlier.
It is not an issue that can be solved by that machinery of constructive peace about which the Foreign Secretary discoursed on Monday. No general Acts, no Kellogg Pacts, no machinery of the League of Nations will avert war in the long run if nations have conflicting ideals for which they are prepared to fight and to die—[Interruption]—not economic issues—the last war had very little to do with economic issues—but ideal issues, the dream of nationality, the dream of the maintenance of States on a non-national basis. Until we can be sure that the world is for ever free from the emergence of ideals for which men are prepared to die, and to make others die, no great country which is responsible for the peace of a quarter of mankind within its confines, or which has the deep sense of responsibility that I believe this country has always had towards the peace of mankind, can afford to reduce its security below a certain standard. When one considers the immense responsibility that faces the British Empire, and its absolute dependence on the security of the seas for its existence, we may well doubt whether we have not gone more than far enough already in the direction of naval disarmament.

Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: Those of us who were present at the Debates last year miss the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who has apparently forsaken the quarter-deck. I am pleased to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) in congratulating the Government on their latest achievement in the agreement with France and Italy. It is a very fitting finale to the work of the Prime Minister himself at Washington. I congratulated him last year and I congratulate the Government very heartily now, because agreement is infinitely better than argument in these matters. I will not go meticulously into numbers of ships because, if there is a friendly feeling, there is a much less likelihood of hostilities than if we are constantly bickering. There is one thing in which I agreed with the First Lord, that you should not use the Naval Votes as a kind of out-relief—you should
not accelerate your naval programme in order to provide employment. That is not the function of the Navy Votes. The Navy is for the defence of the country, and defence changes almost year by year.

Mr. KINLEY: Against whom?

Mr. LAMBERT: We have had naval standards. I have been in the House when we had a two-Power standard. Then we had two keels to one. Now, apparently, we have a one-Power standard. I think it will occur to the hon. Member that, while you have a Power with a submarine strength of nearly 82,000 tons and a very strong striking Air Force, you really must be prepared to defend your food and your existence. I am as pacifically inclined as he is.

Mr. KINLEY: But you want a bigger gun than the other fellow.

Mr. LAMBERT: I want to be able to protect myself against him. You will not by cutting down, say, the Navy save money in the long run. I have seen it. We cut down prior to 1909. Then there was a panic and money was spent galore. However, that is not quite what I wanted to say. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that, if we have a Fleet, we should have an efficient Fleet. We have the finest personnel in the world, and it should have every advantage that wise foresight can give it. In the last War there is no doubt that the Germans at the commencement had a superiority in mines and explosives.
The First Lord said the Fleet is no good unless it has motive power. But a Fleet must also have eyes. Nelson's frigates in the old days supplied him with information. I want to ask the First Lord a very frank question. Is the Admiralty satisfied with the present air provision for the Fleet? I cannot help thinking that a divided responsibility must make failure certain. As I understand it, the Navy contributes to the Air Force £1,126,000 for the craft that the Air Force supplies to the Navy. I do not understand to-day how the two Services harmonise one with another. I find that the naval officers for observation duties are provided from the, complement of His Majesty's ships, and are not attached to the Royal Air Force, the responsibility of the Air Ministry in
regard to them being limited to training in air observation. That means, I suppose, that in the first place the Admiralty train their officers and then those officers go on to the Air Force.
That is an impossible position. What does air observation mean? I presume that it means "spotting." I do not know the technical details, but I assume that it must mean something. At any rate, it should be under the control of one authority. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The Fleet Air Arm, apparently, is the property of the Air Ministry; it is not under the control of the Navy. There, again, I cannot understand the position. It would be of great advantage if the Admiralty had on their Board men of air ability or air sense. It might enable them to settle the types of vessels, and also it would enable them to know something more of naval needs and bases.
There is the question of weapons, and there, again, it is rather difficult in discussing these matters, first to have to go to the Air Estimates and then to the Navy Estimates. I have the Navy Estimates here, and I find that as far as weapons are concerned, the cost of the supply of the torpedoes required for the Fleet Air Arm is not included in the grant but is borne by Navy Votes direct. That is to say, the Air Ministry supply the machines but the torpedoes are supplied by the Admiralty. That cannot be right. The cost of filling bomb cases supplied by the Air Ministry is also borne by the Navy Votes. That means that the filling of bomb cases is done by the Admiralty, but the supply of these bomb cases, apparently, has to come from the Air Force. That again cannot be right. There must be muddle and complications, which, in times of stress might lead to disaster. I suggested 10 years ago that the Admiralty should be responsible for defence against invasion. I believe that that is as true to-day as it was then. I was then sat upon by my former chief the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. I ask the Government to take this matter in hand. I can understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook could not say anything about it because it went on during four and a half years of his administration, but I come in with a fresh mind. This matter should be
looked into, and the Navy should have absolute control of its own air arm.
I heard the statement of the First Lord about Admiralty oilers. I want to know something about those oilers. Apparently, the Admiralty are going in for private trading. I do not know whether the First Lord will kindly tell me what he meant by this phrase "depressed freights" in his statement. It says here that there has been a heavy fall in the earning powers of the Admiralty oversea oilers owing to the depressed state of the freight market. Does that mean that the Admiralty are going into the market as a kind of private trading arrangement to carry oil? If so, I shall strongly object to it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make that matter clear. We have the oil tankers which are very necessary in war time, and if there is a shortage of freight, as there has been in years past, in the mercantile marine and it is desired to charter existing oil tankers to make up a deficiency during peace time, surely, it is a very good thing for the country and a very good thing for the Admiralty.

Mr. LAMBERT: That depends how far it is going to continue. If they use redundant tonnage, it is another matter, but if they go into private trading, the Admiralty will lose money every time. They will be no match for the shrewd shipowners. The Board of Admiralty are excellent men, fine naval officers, but, in business matters, really, I would back the shipowners against them every time. My right hon. Friend referred to dockyards, and I saw a smile appear on the faces of Members of dockyard constituencies because he is giving very little work out to contract. I observe that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) the other day was rather vicious because he had not got some ships on the Clyde. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is a Pacifist!"] My hon. Friend must really forgive me for not following all the interruptions on the other side. The number of the personnel of the fighting force of the Navy to-day is 93,650 men, and in 1914 there were 149,000 men, but the dockyards to-day have 51,000 in the out-port establishments, whereas in 1914 there were 57,000 in those establishments. There is a reduction of 55,000 fighting sailors, but a
reduction of only 6,700 in the dockyards. Personally, I would rather trust the defence of the country to the sailors than to the dockyard men, though they are so ably represented here. Does my right hon. Friend think that he has gone far enough in that direction? There is a great disparity in numbers when you have a reduction of 55,000 sailors and a reduction of only 6,700 in the dockyards.
I have never been able to understand why the Admiralty civilian establishment should be quite so numerous. In the days when I was at the Admiralty we had some pretty capable administrators. There was Mr. McKenna, who is now the President of the Midland Bank, the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Epping, who took charge of all the Admiralty, Lord Fisher and other men of that type. The Admiralty staff in those days, when we had 149,000 sailors, was 2,072, and now, when we have 93,000 sailors, it is 2,763. Why should you have 700 more when you have 55,000 fewer sailors?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman must not forget what we do for the sailors.

Mr. LAMBERT: What have civilians at the Admiralty to do with sailors? I cannot understand why there is this great discrepancy. I know that there are difficulties in compressing the staff, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should do something. In conclusion, I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty upon the distinct achievement the other day.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: We have had the advantage of listening to a former Civil Lord of longer service than any man in this House. I remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) was at the Admiralty preceding the War, and right through those great days; consequently, he speaks to-day with an authority which many of us envy. This is the occasion when we are entitled to review the position of the Navy from a national point of view, the work it is performing, and its relation to the impulse of opinion, not only in this land but throughout the world. Briefly and concisely, I want to direct myself to these matters. There is present in the minds of all of us that
great event which is rapidly approaching when we, Members on all sides of the House, expect the present Government to do their utmost, in concert with other nations, to bring about, not only a limitation but a reduction of armaments. The notable mission from which the right hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Secretary have lately return was directed to the limitation of armaments, and the whole House congratulates my right hon. Friends on the success which they attained. It was a very remarkable check to a threatened expansion in naval forces in Europe which would have had dire results on international armaments.
As the First Lord said, the conversations put an end to competitive building in all categories, and that was an achievement upon which the whole nation will congratulate the statesmen concerned. He referred to the principle on which this work has been conducted, and I presume that that principle is the setting up of a ratio of strength in particular categories of ships. May I ask that at some convenient time the House should be informed whether any conditions were discussed and accepted as between this country and the other great nations concerned in this arrangement? For instance, I confess that I am disturbed by having seen a suggestion made by the very capable Paris correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian." It is said in Paris that undertakings were given as a result of these conversations that His Majesty's present advisers will support what is described as the French claims at the forthcoming Disarmament Conference. For myself I cannot credit it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: On the point which has been raised by my hon. and learned Friend, I must say at once that the agreement we arrived at was under no such condition; it was never discussed, and was never mentioned.

Mr. KNIGHT: I confess that I desired to elicit that repudiation. Great satisfaction will be felt outside as well as inside this House at the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman has just made. It is clearly understood now that those conversations were not connected with any undertaking concerning the forthcoming conference.
I desire to pass to the second aim which the Government have in view. Having just concluded a conference directed to the limitation of armaments, what steps do they propose to take in the forthcoming year for the reduction of armaments? The work for the reduction of armaments—and here I am certain that I shall carry with me every occupant of the Government Front Bench—is the main purpose for which they are going to enter the Disarmament Conference. It is the work which the whole civilised world expects them to assist. If I may, with all respect, exclude from this category the Noble Lady who sits for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), I believe that every Member of this House desires that whatever Government are in office—we on these benches hope profoundly that His Majesty's present advisers will continue in office—they will pursue the wishes of the people of this country and of the Empire in seeing that at that Conference everything shall be done to bring about an effective reduction of naval strength throughout the world.

Viscountess ASTOR: Did the hon. Member say that he would leave me out of it?

Mr. KNIGHT: I did not want to disturb the Noble Lady unnecessarily.

Viscountess ASTOR: It disturbs me very much. Why should the hon. Member pick me out as if I am the only person, apparently, in the House or in the Empire who does not want progressive reduction of armaments, and peace? What does the hon. Member mean?

Mr. KNIGHT: Since I am invited to say what I mean, I propose to answer the Noble Lady. The reason why I excepted her from the general description which I hoped would include every other Member of the House, was because of a certain movement, a characteristic movement, of hers, which I thought separated her from the persons to whom I was referring. She is a past-mistress in the art of silent speech. When you have the advantage of sitting opposite to her, you are able to read all sorts of comments which she is making on the Debates as they proceed, although she utters not a word. If I have done her an injustice or if I have misunderstood her
action, I apologise. I should be only too glad to include the Noble Lady in the workers for peace, but, frankly, after an experience of mine some years ago at Plymouth I have a little difficulty in including her in that category.

Viscountess ASTOR: I really must protest. I sometimes believe that hon. and right hon. Members opposite in order to draw attention to themselves, draw attention to me. When they want to make a scene, they say that I have done something. I did not move my hand on the present occasion. Beyond making a slight gesture, I was quite unconscious of having made any move. I do ask for the protection of the Chair. They say: "Lady Astor interrupts again." They have me interrupting when I am not in the House of Commons.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sure the Noble Lady does not need my protection.

Viscountess ASTOR: I do.

Mr. KNIGHT: The Noble Lady entirely misunderstands the situation if she supposes that I referred to her in order to call attention to myself. I have been engaged in these matters in this country for a number of years before the Noble Lady appeared in public business.

Viscountess ASTOR: Not in the House of Commons.

Mr. KNIGHT: I said in the country, which includes the House of Commons.

Mr. PYBUS: Is the hon. Member discussing the Navy, or what is he talking about?

Mr. KNIGHT: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has only lately entered the House.

Mr. PYBUS: I have been here long enough.

Mr. KNIGHT: I was diverted from what I was saying in order to meet what, I understood, was the pained remonstrance of the noble Lady. Perhaps I may be allowed to resume my argument. I was inviting the Committee to consider the second main purpose which is to be prosecuted at the forthcoming Disarmament Conference, namely, the reduction of naval armaments. On that question the late Secretary of State for the Domin-
ions, the right hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery), made certain observations which are of particular interest because they reiterated a view which is a pre-War view, a view which, in part, contributed to the Great War—an assertion which I am prepared to substantiate on the proper occasion—and a view which embodies a claim which, if persisted in at the Disarmament Conference, will end that Conference in disaster.
The right hon. Gentleman declared that we had effected an enormous reduction in our naval strength. That reduction was a progressive diminution of war strength, a war strength which was predominant in such a way as to be unexampled in the history of naval armaments. He stated that we were lowering the standard of security and even went so far as to make a statement, which I wrote down, that he had an apprehension that the Navy was disappearing by wastage from the bottom. How any hon. or right hon. Member could use such an expression regarding our present naval position in the light of the table of fleets which can be obtained at the Vote Office, I fail to understand. I think it must have been an extract from some pre-War speech, which suddenly came back to him while he was making his observations. It has no relevance whatever to the present situation.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Member aware that the statement was the Prime Minister's statement? It was a quotation from the Prime Minister's speech.

Mr. KNIGHT: Can the hon. Member tell me when that speech was made?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In 1924.

Mr. KNIGHT: I confess that I have followed with care the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I certainly was not aware that that was a phrase which he had used. If he did use it, I am quite certain that he used it sarcastically. At any rate, the progressive diminution which has taken place is a diminution from a predominant war strength and a diminution which we ought to make, and which the world expected us to make, and we cannot preen ourselves on making it.
The major point in the observations of the right hon. Member was the reiteration of a claim that we have to protect 80,000 miles of trade routes. I have said in this House, and I apologise for repeating it, that the 80,000 miles of trade routes to which the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends are continually referring, are the arteries of the world's commerce. It is true that our own food and commerce have to be carried over those routes, but the commerce of other nations has to be carried over the same routes. If you have an identity of interests over the same routes, surely the work of wisdom is to try to devise some method of dealing with those routes which will harmonise all existing interests. As a matter of fact, this claim to control the high sea routes of the world is a claim which no other nation will recognise, and if any Government goes into the Disarmament Conference with that claim, it will bring the Conference to a disastrous end. I hope the Government in their preparations for the forthcoming Disarmament Conference will arrange to meet the desire of other nations that those trade routes shall be brought under international regulation. I am satisfied that internationa, regulation is a sine qua non of peace and disarmament, and I would urge the Government to pursue that aim with all speed and in every possible way.
While congratulating the Government on the success which they have recently achieved in their further endeavours to obtain the limitation of armaments by stopping the dire race in competitive armaments between France and Italy, I hope that every effort will be made in the coming year to pursue the task of so preparing for the work of the Disarmament Conference, that the whole country and the world may rejoice in the issue that will result in the trade routes of the world being brought under international agreement.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. ROSS: It has become customary on these benches to call upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite from time to time to produce a rabbit out of a hat. On this occasion I can congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty on having performed the trick, because he has produced the agreement between France
and Italy, which has been seen by those of us on these benches this afternoon for the first time. It is very difficult to tell whether it is a good rabbit, a bad rabbit or an indifferent rabbit. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, and I speak only for myself, I think that the Government are to be congratulated on having produced any agreement at all between France and Italy. There could have been many better agreements, still it is an agreement, and as far as it has been possible to examine it at such short notice there is much that is good in it. I should not criticise the desire of France and Italy to some extent to bring their capital ships fleet up to date, but there is one feature to which I must draw the attention of the House at once, and that is that in this agreement between France and Italy the principle of what are called the Washington ratios has gone completely. At the Washington Conference certain ratios of strength were arranged between Great Britain and the United States, Japan and France and Italy. This ratio of strength as between France and Italy has completely gone.
It is said that France and Ialy accept the provisions of Part III of the London Naval Treaty. Among those provisions is one which limited the number of leaders or large destroyers in size and in numbers. I cannot believe that France has accepted that proposal, and I hope that the point will be dealt with during the course of a Debate. Presumably the B class of cruisers and destroyers are all lumped in under one figure without distinctions. The agreement enables France and Italy to replace cruisers of the larger calibre by destroyers. This provides the French Government with an opportunity of scrapping 65,000 tons of perfectly useless old armoured cruisers and translating it into modern destroyers. This provision will give France the possibility, in fact the certainty, of having a flotilla which will be superior to ours in modern ships, and it is modern ships which count. As to submarine tonnage it is immense and nearly double that of ours, and I may have to say a word about that later on.
Before I come to an exact discussion of the ships I should like to draw attention to a matter which is not the sub-
ject of any controlling regulations of any disarmament conference, and that is Naval Air Force. In my belief the position of our naval aircraft in relation to the needs of the Fleet at sea, and also in relation to the strength of other Powers, is a serious one. It is not possible for any real satisfactory agreement as to limitation to be arrived at which neglects naval aircraft, as the London Naval Treaty neglects it; but that makes it all the more important that we do not drop behind in this respect. At the moment the United States of America has more than twice as many aeroplanes carried with the Fleet as we have. The figures given by the First Lord in January were 306 for the United States and 142 for ourselves. In addition, the Naval Air Arm in the United States is very strong in machines which are kept on shore and which would be available for reinforcement, and they are approaching their ideal of 1,000 machines. As to the actual effect of modern naval aircraft upon fleets one has to combine the experience of the War and the experiments of peace, but no one can deny that a fleet which is deficient in naval aircraft must be at a great disadvantage compared with a fleet which is properly equipped. A modern fleet, whose cruisers do not carry aircraft which can fly from their decks, cannot be considered efficient. Unfortunately, in that we have lagged behind. Catapults were almost standardised in the United States in 1925, but even now our 10,000-ton county cruisers have been completed without them. I hope we may get further information on this matter and as to whether it is not possible to hurry things up and put the Fleet in its proper position and standing in the world's navies.
As to the Battle Fleet I have only one question to ask, and I do not press for detailed information. When we hear of foreign battle fleets being brought up to date and the angle of fire of their guns increased from the ordinary old-fashioned 15 feet up to 35 I should like to have an assurance from the Government that our Battle Fleet is efficient and is not in need of reconstruction of that nature. It is a matter of great concern to all of us to see the extraordinary changes in our shipbuilding industry in respect of work carried out for foreign Powers.
Before the War it was customary for many millions of pounds to flow into this country and into the pockets of those engaged in the shipbuilding industry from contract work for foreign Powers. Now it is hardly ever that you see a contract coming to Great Britain; and it is not that foreign Powers have given up building. Turn to Italy and you will see the large number of ships that are being built in the yards for the Argentine, and for many other countries which are incapable of building warships themselves.
I suggest that there is a connection between this fact and the relative performance of foreign warships and British warships. The design of the ships recently built does not look well on paper when compared to those of other Powers. I wonder sometimes whether the British contractor is not a little too conservative. Has he adapted himself to weight-saving? Has he explored the question of electric welding? It is possible for the Admiralty to consider the further use of the Diesel engine in service ships. Might they not try it out in a surface ship? Would it not be possible, in the interests of the shipbuilding industry at large, to run full power trials occasionally and to allow the achievements of our ships to become public so that it might be known throughout the world that we can build ships which are second to none?
As to our programme, there are various questions which occur to me; and one is the question of cruisers. I do not propose to address the House at any length because I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) will deal with the matter at a later stage, but in passing I would comment on our present position. We have been given a definite standard by the London Naval Treaty, and that. standard is one which, in my submission, we might well try to attain by having a definite and published programme which would show the country how it stands, whether we are going to build up to the number of ships we are allowed by the Treaty or whether for some reason the Government think it proper to build a lesser number of ships. As far as it is possible to calculate we must be below what we are allowed to have in cruisers. We cannot have 50 cruisers of the ap-
propriate degree of modernity by 1936. It is possible to say that the Treaty does not permit us to have ships under 16 years old. That is so, but if you take the standard of 18 years of age for our ships and allow everybody else a standard of 16 years, even then, if we have a programme of this small size next year, in 1936 we shall be nine cruisers short of the 50, and those cruisers will be much older on the average than those of other Powers.
The most serious point I have to make, however, is not in connection with cruisers, but in connection with flotillas. We have never been in a position of such relative weakness to other Powers in flotillas in the history of our nation, certainly not since the Napoleonic Wars, and of the various categories of ships which composes a navy the destroyers are in a worse position than any other. It must be remembered that the function of a destroyer, contrary to its name, is not primarily that of offence. It was originally designed for a primary offensive purpose, but in the last War it was the destroyer which above all other vessels was the maid of all work for defence. There was an unlimited demand for this class of vessel, whether to protect the big ships or the merchant convoys, and if we allow ourselves to become so short of modern destroyers that our flotillas become inefficient we are running a risk as grave as any that can be run by any sea power. As to the type of ship which we are now building, I hope the Government will consider the policy adopted in building torpedo craft before the War, and to some extent after it, so that there should be large flotilla leaders of a definitely increased size to that of the destroyers they lead, or a definitely more powerful armament and generally having a knot or two in hand in speed. That was a policy founded on the experience of the War. I need only refer to the actions in which the "Botha" and the "Brooke' played such a distinguished part in the Straits of Dover, and other actions in which the superior gun power of the British destroyer indicated itself against the less heavily-gunned Germans. That appeared to be a lesson of the War—that the leader, as we were building that type, was an appropriate type to have in our flotillas.
What is the position now? We are not building leaders any more, except in name. It seems to me almost fraudulent to have, in the Returns of the Fleet, lists of so-called destroyer leaders which would suggest a more powerful type of ship than a destroyer, when in fact, compared with the Japanese destroyers, they are infinitely less powerful. The leaders which are being built for the British Navy now are 13,000 tons-odd in displacement, whereas the Japanese destroyer is of 17,000 tons. The British leader armament is four 4.7 guns, and the Japanese have a destroyer armament of six 5-inch guns mounted in turrets. There can be no question as to which would be the more powerful. Yet you have this distinction kept up, and this change of policy which one cannot understand, because there is no justification whatever for it on the ground of necessity of tonnage, as we can certainly afford to build leaders as we have done in the past.
Then there is the question of strength. At the end of the War we had, I believe, between 400 and 500 destroyers of one sort and another, and work for all. What have we now? Including the Basilisk class, and the two Canadian destroyers which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) did not include in his total, we have only 71 which are under 12 years of age, and, with all respect to the First Lord, 12 years is not an inappropriate length of time for vessels which had some experience of war work. How does that total of 71 compare with other countries? Japan has 83, including the 1929 programme. Italy has 57, but it has to be remembered that Italy is purely a Mediterranean Power and has no obligations outside the inland sea, while we have to maintain squadrons all over the world. Yet we have a superiority of only about 14 over Italy in a type of vessel which is possibly the most important to us.
When I went into these figures of the destroyer position I certainly was astonished to find how much worse they were than I had supposed. We are entitled to 150,000 tons in destroyers. We have only about 135,000 tons at present, and of that amount over 80,000 tons is out of date already. The United States is in a far better position, and Japan too. Let me compare the position
with France. In 1933, as far as I can judge—it is not easy to make these calculations—we shall have about 58,000 tons of destroyers and leaders that are of effective age, that is under 12 years. France will have 108,000 tons, or practically twice as much. That is an astonish-position. I take the position vis-a-vis France, not because I have any particular reason to pick France as an opponent more than another, but I have often said that I thought this country should not live entirely at the good will of other countries but should be in a position to have a defence adequate to her own needs. Under this agreement France is to be allowed 80,000 tons of submarines, most of them modern boats. She is to have a quantity of destroyers and small light cruisers which will, I think, vastly exceed ours.
It is impossible to work this very technical matter straight out without having considerably more time than I have had since I knew what the arrangement was, but I would very much like to hear what is the Admiralty view of this matter, bearing in mind that by the agreement come to—as we see in page 5, Heading B. and Sub-head (b)—it will be possible for France or Italy to build destroyers and destroyer leaders without any limitation as to the number of powerful vessels, on which we are limited, to scrap their old armoured cruisers, which are quite useless, to the tune of about 60,000 tons, and to replace them by modern efficient torpedo craft. I hope that our relations with France will be so friendly that war would be out of question, but I do say that if at any naval staff college a war game was worked out, they would find the position of this country, with the relative strength that I have given, not only precarious but impossible in the case of hostility from that direction. I cannot see why it should be necessary for us to assent to a superiority of almost two to one in submarines, and to a superiority in modern ships which appears to be almost as great in flotillas. Although, as an individual Member, I humbly congratulate the First Lord for having got an agreement, surely it has a point of great weakness and anxiety in that it places us in this position of very definite and marked inferiority, and personally I very much hope that, though this may be a temporary position of in-
feriority, the Government will make it plain that, whether by reduction at some future conference or by building up at some future date, we are not going to assent to be inferior to any country in any class.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) in the technical arguments which he has advanced, and advanced with the knowledge and experience which we are accustomed to expect from him when the Navy Estimates are under discussion. Indeed, I should not have risen at all had it not been for the very muddled speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). He used the word "unilateral" so often that I began to imagine that he was a member of the No More War Movement. If we are to have a distinction in this House between unilateral disarmament on the one hand and disarmament by mutual agreement on the other, we had better stick to certain very plain and acceptable definitions. It is not a statement of fact to say, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that in the Three-Power Naval Agreement of last year we entered into an arrangement for unilateral disarmament. It is not a statement of fact to say that we have not built up to the full provision of that Treaty in the Estimates of 1931, that we have been guilty of the terrible crime, as the right hon. Gentleman conceives it, of marching in the direction of unilateral disarmament.
The right hon. Gentleman can complain, if he likes, that the arrangements made in the Three-Power Agreement, or the arrangements that have been made between the French and the Italian Governments, were bad agreements from a mutual point of view. He can say, if he likes, that had he been in charge of affairs he would have made a better agreement on mutual terms. But the right hon. Gentleman misused language in the way in which he applied the word "unilateral" and used it as the theme of his speech almost from beginning to end. I listened to his speech with some care, and I found that all the way through he was complaining because the Estimates in respect of each category of vessel were, in his judgment, not strong enough. The right hon. Gentleman is
greatly disappointed with the agreement that was made a year ago. He prefers the standard of building represented by 70 cruisers rather than the standard of 50 which was established by mutual agreement in 1930. Then, added to that primary disappointment, he complains that, even on the standard of 50, we fall, on every reasonable calculation, below the requirements for the coming year in terms of cruisers and of four of the five classes of vessels which he enumerated.
When I hear the right hon. Gentleman going on in this strain I am reminded of the sort of difficulties that Mr. Stimson had when he was trying to get the Naval Agreement through that narrow bottle-neck, the Senate of the United States, in April of last year. One of the most effective arguments which Mr. Stimson employed in dealing with what he called the professional warriors of all countries, before he succeeded in the miraculous operation of pushing the agreement through the bottle-neck, was that the contentions of professional warriors—I think he would be inclined to classify the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in that definition—mutually cancelled one another out. He pointed out, in relation to the Three-Power Treaty, that the ex-Lords of the Admiralty in the United States and in Great Britain and Japan were roughly making against the Treaty a case which obviously proved the merits of the Treaty. The argument that Mr. Stimson used is entirely applicable to the point of view of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I could understand the right hon. Gentleman's grievance if we were dealing with a Treaty of minimum provisions, if we by mutual agreement had pledged ourselves to build a minimum of 50 cruisers and a minimum as provided in the Three-Power Treaty of January of last year. But, as a matter of fact, we have pledged ourselves not to exceed these figures as a maximum by 1935 or 1936.
Within the ambit of this Treaty there is nowhere any statement that we will build up to the full limit of the figures laid down. On the contrary, if we want to get the best results out of the Treaty the sound and safe line of procedure is to keep well below the maximum provisions. If we look across the Atlantic we see that the "Big Navy" group in America have been pressing for the 100
per cent. fulfilment of the American programme of naval construction, but they have been beaten by the sound common sense of the American public, just as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook is beaten here in this House when he advances the same kind of argument. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of unilateral disarmament, in terms of cruisers, I beg him to investigate the actual programme laid down by the United States this year and to multiple it by five and to see what would be the construction programme in the United States on those terms. Indeed I should like to congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty on the wisdom which he has displayed in implementing the terms of this Treaty, by virtue of which he has not divided the total amount of ships to be built into five or six classes and built up to the full quota permissible under the Treaty.
I would like, on behalf of my Yorkshire colleagues, along with other Members, to congratulate the First Lord, first on the great success which he has achieved in a very difficult enterprise in reconciling the naval contention of two great neighbouring and friendly Powers. Secondly, I wish to add to that very sincere congratulation, a compliment to him on the fact that he has decided, as far as this year is concerned, not to exercise the reserve powers which he holds on behalf of this Government in respect to further shipbuilding in relation to the 1930 agreement. He has said that he does not propose to exercise certain powers which might reasonably be exercised in relation, for example, to submarine and destroyer construction. I am very glad, because, here again, the right hon. Gentleman shows that he has the commonsense of the nation well measured and well estimated. He has shown what I may describe as psychological as well as technical efficiency in naval matters, by leaving this matter to lie on the table until after the world Disarmament Conference of 1932 has had its say. It is not often that a First Lord of the Admiralty receives compliments from anybody and I should like, in the third place, to offer the right hon. Gentleman my congratulations on the fact that he has followed up the very considerable reduction in terms of cash which has made last year—I think the
figure was something like £4,000,000—with another appreciable reduction this year. The gross reduction, if I remember correctly, is about £2,400,000 and I regret the series of unhappy accidents as a result of which it is not possible to show this sum as a net reduction in the presentation of this year's Estimates.
I appreciate this slow, steady reduction all the more, in view of the approaching Disarmament Conference. Those who have been watching the general movement of affairs on the Continent know the temptation, not only for the chiefs of admiralties, but for those responsible for armies and air services to inflate the Estimates of 1931, more or less deliberately, as a mode of preparation for the forthcoming Conference. I am exceedingly glad that the First Lord has not yielded to that temptation, but has, on the contrary, set the best possible example to Europe and the world by carrying out a further process of reduction and making it clear, beyond a peradventure, what our intentions are in reference to the Disarmament Conference of February next. As I say, it was the rather muddle-headed speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook which occasioned this intervention on my part, and I conclude by saying that I am glad to realise the provisional nature of the Estimates. The First Lord's statement contains the following sentence:
If, however, the progress realised in the Disarmament Conference indicates that reductions are possible of achievement it will still be possible for His Majesty's Government to cancel or postpone the various items in the programme.
That sentence indicates the general attitude of His Majesty's Government and of public opinion in this country towards the forthcoming Conference. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook has suggested that the best way to obtain security is to build up to the full limit of the 1930 Treaty, with meticulous care, ton for ton and gun for gun, so that nothing shall be omitted and so that we may proceed with resistless logic to the 100 per cent. fulfilment of the maximum terms. I can conceive no worse method of inviting world disarmament and promoting world peace than the application of such a policy. There is no more certain way to promote naval
rivalries and mutual jealousies than to insist on the absolute, literal, servile fulfilment of the maximum terms laid down a year ago. I believe I am speaking on behalf of a very wide British public in offering hearty congratulations to the First Lord on his statement that we are not to go on those lines but that we are to go slowly, steadily and carefully, and that we are going to create a psychological foundation in our naval Estimates this year, which will provide the most favourable opportunity for achieving further appreciable reductions of a world-wide character when the great Disarmament Conference of next year comes into being.

Sir B. FALLE: The last speaker said that the First Lard of the Admiralty did not receive many compliments, but I frankly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the address which he gave us. It was clear, and, as we have a right to expect from him, it was able. At the same time, he will forgive me if I say that it was a sad story not alone for the dockyard Members but for the people of this country. There was one bright spot in it—of what candle-power I am not exactly sure—and that was his allusion to Singapore. Presumably, it was not altogether what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) wanted, but it is a great score from the Conservative point of view that Singapore is to be completed, if not, as regards air matters, at any rate as far as the dockyards and the defence thereof are concerned. I agree whole-heartedly with what fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) whose speech was even more illuminating than his speeches usually are. He, of course, speaks with the greatest authority and he covered much of the ground which we otherwise would have thought it necessary to deal with and for that alone I should be grateful to him. He has all the details at his fingers' ends and, what is more, his details are accurate, which is perhaps more than can be said of all the statements made in this House.
It has been suggested by another speaker in this Debate that our trade routes ought to be guaranteed by "international power." International power
seems a very nne thing—if you could only secure it—but during the War we sank an enemy ship in Spanish waters, and internationalism said nothing, and we sank another ship in Chilean waters and internationalism said nothing. Those are facts which weigh against what I should call the schoolmaster view of what may or may not happen during war. It is to me a dreadful thing to hear the First Lord congratulating himself on the fact that the personnel of the Navy is to be reduced. We are told that 10,000 officers and men will shortly he put out of the Navy. In the case of the men, admittedly, that will be done by wastage, but in the case of the officers they will be put out whether they like it or not, and apparently they are not to be given any rise in rank on their retirement even though that involves no cost. Apparently they are not on retirement to be eligible for higher rank.
I do not know why that is the case, because it seems to me it would be a graceful thing to make that concession and it would cost the Admiralty nothing. A commander could be retired as a captain, and a lieutenant-commander could be retired as a commander and they would receive, at any rate, some solatium for what I regard as a breach of contract. It is true that the contract with the Government is one-sided, but the fact that an officer's parents have spent large sums of money on his education, and that nothing has been found against his service and that he is only being "axed" because of the great idea of saving money should he taken into account. I suggest, too, that money may be saved at too great an expense in other directions. In saving small sums on the Navy we are running up a great bill in other respects which will ultimately have to be paid. I look upon the present arrangement in the Navy as one under which we are living from hand to mouth. Pray Heaven that we may not find ourselves in a difficulty of the same kind as that which came upon us in 1914 when a very large majority in this House assured us that there was no danger of war with Germany and that such an event was unthinkable. We are reducing the numbers of our men. We are reducing the present number of boys; we are not taking the same number into the Service. These boys
make the finest of our sailors, but I believe at the present time in Portsmouth we are only enlisting one boy a day or six boys a week. That appears to be a very dangerous proceeding and one which will leave us without trained men when we require them.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his dockyard arrangements. I believe they are going to work extremely well. I remember that the first year I had the honour of beiog a Member of this House, I raised the question of "Muster stations." I went to muster stations and saw how they worked, and the then First Lord of the Admiralty was very severe on me, expressing the hope that when next I went into a dockyard I would get permission. The amusing part of it was that I had that permission from the police officer at the gate, but, of course, I could not give him away, and so I had to bear the criticism of the then First Lord.
One of the most important Members of the Government, especially in naval affairs, excepting the First Lord himself, is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think he recently said that each election cost the winning party about £10,000,000 in redeeming the promises that they had made. Money is scarce, or tight, as they say in the City. We are spending beyond our strength, and, what is more, we are increasing our expenditure by millions, and it is a very dangerous proceeding, but it is not so dangerous as letting the Royal Navy down below its proper strength, because the strength of the Royal Navy is the insurance of the people of this country.
We own the better part of the habitable world, if not the best part, and many nations covet what we have got; they covet our inheritance, and the next point beyond coveting is to see if you can get the thing yourself, to try to acquire that which you covet, whatever it may be, perhaps in those parts of the world which are not filled with our people as they should be, where our people are not as thickly on the ground as they ought to be, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape itself. Those lands are not populated as they should be, and there are nations which have a very large overspill, and they do not see why that overspill should not go to great Dominions which might belong to
them where white men can live and marry and multiply. If anybody doubts that the nations covet what we have got, they need only remember the German terms of peace that would have been made had they won the War. It would have been a very had day for the people of this country if the German had won.
The Conservative Government, I admit at once, cut the Navy to the bone, but this Government has not only scraped the bone but scraped it to the extent that it is inadequate to the burden which it has to bear and to the strength which it has to put forward. [Interruption.] That is my view, though it does not appear to meet with great acceptance from the benches opposite. I am not content with a lower standard in the number of ships, and I do not believe in the scrapping of officers, but I would let the ships go, comparatively speaking, if only we kept the men, on whom we have to rely and who must be long-service men. If not, we risk the life of the nation, and we are breaking faith, not only with the Navy, but with the people of this country and of our great Dominions.
I asked the First Lord the other day about the unhappy episode which arose on the "Lucia," and I maintained that if we had the proper complement of men in the Royal Naval Barracks, a detachment could have been sent down to assist in painting the "Lucia," and no trouble would have arisen. The answer was that it is not the custom. I rather challenge that answer. Custom is a good thing, but there is such a thing as a bad custom as well as a good one, and it may have arisen from a hundred and one reasons, but the fact remains that if that. complement had been ready at the Royal Naval Barracks, there would have been no discontent or trouble, and we should not have had that unpleasant episode, the breaking of two officers in His Majesty's Service and the dismissal of some ratings.
The rising generation is unaware of the sacrifices and the services of the Royal Navy during the War. They do not realise that if it had not been for the Navy, we in this country would now be the slaves of the Germans. The present generation sitting in this House seem to have forgotten the great services of the Royal Navy. Far be it from me to question or water down the
immense services of the Army and of the Air Force—I have had the honour of serving in the Army myself—but are we yet fully aware that not a single man, gun, or shot would have been landed or the men fed without the British Navy allowing those things to be carried across the seas. Men of this generation in this House seem not to know or to have forgotten that fact and seem ready to part, not only with the spear, but with the shield of the Royal Navy. We saw last night, when angry passions rise, when comrade is rude to comrade, that other comrades have to take them by the hand and prevent them getting at each other. They do not want guns, pistols or knives; they want their bare hands or their closed fists. And they are pacifists—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not all!"] It would indeed be a sad moment for this country if the party opposite were composed absolutely of pacifists. Their exit would be quicker than it is going to be if it were so, because I think the country would rise and throw them out if it did not hang them.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) told us last night that the very appearance of weakness was dangerous. It is extraordinarily dangerous, but it is not so dangerous as the fact itself. All foreign nations know exactly what our strength in ships may be. They cannot make any mistake about it. We are free and open and aboveboard, and we give our ships and their tonnage and the calibre of their guns, and we give their speeds. It is only the incalculable that, fortunately for us, they do not know, and that is the pluck of this country and the courage and the genius of the officers and men who man our Navy: and we are reducing the numbers. We have reduced them to 91,000, while the United States of America have 114,000 and Japan 85,000, and neither of those nations has any of the world problems that face us. As the French say:
"Qui trompe-t-on ici?"
That is what I should like to know. Who is being made a fool? Our ships are limited, in size and numbers, our guns must not be more than 12-inch guns, but nothing is said about their length, their capacity, or the dis-
tance of the trajectory. I have spoken to the First Lord about it in this House. We know "Big Bertha," which was under 8-inch and carried a cannon ball for 75 miles. The fact is that many of these nations think that they are going to get the better of other nations. They build more quickly, they think they can make better guns, but there is one thing that they cannot get, and that is better officers or a better personnel that ours. Fortunately for us, they cannot get anything approaching it. If you want to see that proved, you have only to see the number of our men who are inveigled into the United States Navy, and if they could choose their own moment, we might find ourselves fighting against a Navy, as in 1812, manned by men trained in this Country.
We are gambling. We are a gambling nation. We are not allowed to gamble on the Derby or at Ascot, but you can see the benches in this House on those days, and at about six o'clock when they have bad time to come back, you can see those Members who have been there. Sweepstakes are immoral, whether in Ireland or in this country, but the Stock Exchange flourishes, and many of its members are extraordinarily rich men. But we have no right to gamble with the lives and the happiness of the people of this country and this Empire, and that is what we are doing. We have no right to gamble with the food of our people. We have not the amount of food in this country to keep our men, women and children for more than a very few weeks, but we are deliberately gambling with it; and remember that it would be rich and poor who would suffer, but it would be the poor who would suffer far more than the rich. At the worst, the rich can go elsewhere, but the poor are there, and they must starve, and if they are beaten—and they would be beaten if they were starved—they can be ground down.
By courage, by backbone, by their blood, our ancestors gained for us the fairest inheritance in the world. By cutting down you can save money, but what for? That is, to my mind, the dreadful part of it. We save money on the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force, so that we may have it to spend on what is called the dole, a thing of which very many of the men
who are obliged to take it are thoroughly ashamed. I speak of my own constituency, where some have to live on a dole which is not sufficient to keep body and soul together, and it has the effect of lowering the standard of living all over the country. We are saving for that purpose, and practically for that purpose only. It is an outrage on the people of this country, and why is this done? It is done by the men who made the mad promise of which I spoke at the beginning—and I regret to say that there were thousands who believed it—the mad promise of peace, and a smaller Navy! That is the only promise, so far as I can make out, that so far they are by way of redeeming. It would have been better for us if that was the one promise above all others that they had not redeemed.
7.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) did not believe in the old Roman view that if you want peace you should prepare for war, but at the same time the old Romans knew something about fighting and about world empire, and when they gave up their preparations for war and what they believed in, what happened? They were overrun, and they were scattered. "Their kingdom passed away." May it not he so with us. There are at present two European nations, certainly with the addition of a third, that could break up the British Empire in the first fortnight of a war. And see the temptation to which they are put, with their overspill of population. It is time that we returned to a common-sense view of our great responsibilities not only to ourselves but to our Empire, to those of our blood who have had the courage to go and form new lands of English-speaking peoples at the Antipodes and elsewhere. It is time we took a more serious view of our existence; it is time we realised the burdens and the benefits of that existence, and that we returned to our proper place in the world, to our duty as a House of Commons which governs this country, and to our duty to the people of this country.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This country can never have been in such imminent danger since 1914, to judge by the speech of the hon. Gentleman. He talked about reviving the courage, the backbone and
the blood of our ancestors in order to protect the fair inheritance which we have had handed down to us. I must say it was a very moving utterance, very forcibly delivered, as my hon. Friend's speeches always are, and it is a pity that there were not more hon. Members present to hear it. It merits the very closest attention, and I hope it will receive that wide publicity which its merits deserve. It would be churlish of me were I to withhold my meed of congratulations from the right hon. Gentleman. Everybody who has spoken has commended him on the great service which he has recently rendered, and, while I do felicitate him most sincerely, I would like to utter a warning against premature rejoicing. There seems to have grown up a habit in this country of throwing our hats in the air and applauding every time there is an international conference. Before any of the results are published, before anybody knows what has happened, those engaged in a conference are praised and heralded as heroes. The right hon. Gentleman certainly deserves it in this case, but he was made the recipient of praise long before anybody knew what he had done. There was anticipation in this case as in others. The right hon. Gentleman the late Foreign Secretary was actually feted in this country for an accomplishment of less importance than the one we have been discussing this afternoon.
Be that as it may, this conference habit is a grave public danger. We do not know what we are aiming at in regard to naval policy. Those who have praised the right hon. Gentleman have not the least idea where the right hon. Gentleman is leading them, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has not told us. The public who support the British Navy are left in considerable doubt as to the benefit which they derive from the expenditure. In the last nine years every First Lord has told us that the minimum requirement of this country was something different from what it was the year before. We thought, when Lord Bridgeman went to Geneva, that we had said goodbye to all these fluctuations. We had been on a kind of scenic railway for years, going up and building more cruisers, coming down and building less. Lord Bridgeman, however, told us
virtually that we might brush all these things on one side, that, whatever other countries might do, we needed 70 cruisers and not one less. Our requirements were absolute and not relative; they were not adjectival to the demands of other nations, but were substantive. In view of our wide commitments, the extent of our Empire, the character of our trade and our dependence on certain materials, including food, we could not, he said, do with less than 70 cruisers. There was a great deal to be said for laying down an absolute requirement, whether it was right or wrong. At any rate, one knew what he was doing.
Then the right hon. Gentleman called a conference, the London Naval Conference, and what was the spectacle—I am not deprecating it in the slightest degree as the right hon. Gentleman will see in a moment—with which we were confronted at that Conference? First of all, we called France to the Conference. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had previously arranged to remit a large portion of the French debt in order to enable France to have a navy with which they might play this game with us at the Conference. We next called Italy, whose debt had also been previously remitted and out of the proceeds of which that nation was also enabled to come to the Conference and enter into this huckstering. In order that the picture might be complete, we asked America to come also, having previously arranged to pay our debt to her in full, so that we were maintaining her navy also. We were dealing at the Conference with three Powers—

Mr. TINKER: What about Japan?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am dealing with these three Powers; my hon. Friend is at the other side of the world. We were dealing with three Powers, each one of whose navies we were maintaining. Long discussions were conducted, the Naval Estimates were deprived of their usual construction programme, and we were told to possess ourselves in peace, because in the end some splendid result would ensue. The First Lord of the Admiralty was able to turn to his friends behind him, who are far greater enemies of his than any he met at the Conference and are headed by my hon.
and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and to say to them, "You have pacifist aspirations. Do not say anything for a few months, possess yourselves in silence, and the Conference will bring you a small Navy." To the hon. Gentlemen opposite him, who believe in a big Navy, he was able to say, "You wait and you will find in the end you will have the kind of Navy you desire." Like Little Bo Peep, they have lost their "ships,". … and they will come home "wagging their flags behind them.' For six months or so we waited, and we then had what we expected. I was induced to remain silent because of a great hope expressed by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. He said, "Things are going to be better than ever they were. We are going to be able to stabilise a programme for five years, if we make a success of this Conference. Think of the advantages of that. The country will know where it is, the Empire will know where it is, industry will know where it is and the dockyards will know where they are. We will have everything stabilised."
Accordingly, in the fullness of time a White Paper was presented which contained a Five-Year programme. We were to have between three and four cruisers every year though I notice we have not had the four yet. Our minimum requirements were 50 cruisers and we were to have three or four of them every year. Four cruisers of the Australian Navy were included in those 50 cruisers. I ask my right hon. Friend because I do not think he made any reference to it, where the four cruisers of the Australian Navy are. Are they in commission? There has been a very strange silence about those four cruisers. As I said, we were to have three to four cruisers every year. We started off with three, and we are to have three again this year. We were, under the Treaty, to have an average of two flotillas of destroyers every year, but we have had only one to go on with. However, if this programme were to be fulfilled, I agreed with my right hon. Friend that it would be excellent and would give great assistance to British industry by stabilising requirements. But it did contain a snag. It said, "You must not regard this five year programme as a five year programme, because this is not an English
Navy. All the English have to do for this Navy is to pay for it. This is an Imperial Navy, and must be approved by the whole of the British Empire."
I pointed out to my right hon. Friend that, in my view, it was a little unconstitutional to ask the British taxpayer to vote Supplies, if those Supplies had to he approved by the British Empire before they became effective. However, I was told to possess myself in patience because there would be another conference. We always look forward from conference to conference with a feeling we are getting a little nearer the millennium. When we hear the Foreign Secretary speak, it is as if he says, "Come on together, boys, we will get to the millennium in a few moments." We have had the Imperial Conference, and I have read the summary of the proceedings. But, strange to say, the question of Dominion responsibility for the Navy was never raised at a plenary session at all. At the previous conference you had the representatives of Australia and Canada getting up and making speeches and recognising that this Imperial Navy was an Imperial obligation, yet nothing is done, when you get the representatives of those countries here, to make it into an Empire Navy in reality. It is no use burking the fact we cannot afford to maintain a one-Power standard with America for this reason. Our population is smaller and—I do not refer to our wealth—the burden per head on our English population of maintaining parity is greater than it is on the American population. We will have to face that problem.
We now come to the programmes for this year. Are we to rely upon that? No. there is to be another conference. Last year it was to be an Empire Navy, but now it is to be a League of Nations' Navy. It is to be decided at Geneva what the British Government are to do to protect themselves. There is a great deal to be said about making it a League of Nations Navy. Under the Covenant our Navy is at the disposal of the League of Nations in order to subdue any recalcitrant state. The only thing wrong with the proposal is that the League of Nations is not paying for it, and we are. It is not only the League of Nations which has imposed fresh obligations upon the British Navy
which were not placed on it before the War. The whole series of these conferences has culminated in adding further obligation on us. I commend this to the small section of hon. Members opposite who are pacifists. They are all in favour of entering into conferences and making agreements. We give these guarantees; then they say, "Dissipate your capital—the capital with which to meet these obligations is of no account."
Locarno places very serious obligations on this country. Either that was made to provide against a serious contingency, in which case one might have been justified in praising the right hon. Gentleman, or it was meant for humbug, and to provide against something that could never occur. Of course, the contingency against which it provides can occur, and we are in honour bound to use our Fleet in order to punish either France or Germany, as the case may be—a proceeding which would involve the whole of the British Empire and the whole world in a conflict. We have a pacific pact, the Washington Treaty, in order to protect the status quo of three other Powers in the Pacific, and an agreement whereby we have to protect the freedom of the Straits against any sudden emergency. We have made a declaration in regard to Egypt. We are responsible for the integrity of Egypt against any attack upon that country, however direct or indirect. I ask the right hon. Gentleman—do these obligations mean anything or do they not? If they do mean something, is there any substantive and absolute standard below which the Navy must not be allowed to fall? Where are we going to? Let the British public know. If it is becoming merely a game of statistics, as it is apparently becoming, let the public know, and have the Navy managed by senior wranglers.
The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of sinking into a morass of statistics. Does he realise that these calculations are becoming so complicated that nobody without an actuarial training can tell you what the British Fleet should be at any moment? You have to add something to the French Navy, substract it from the Italian Navy, take away the number you first thought of, add it on to the American Navy, divide by one-fifth, and you will then get what the British Navy is. It is becoming a serious actuarial matter, and
it means that you will entrench officials. Once you make this a purely technical mathematical subject, the ordinary layman will not be able to make a speech upon the Navy at all, because he will never know at any given moment of what the Navy consists. That is a very serious situation. Therefore, my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman is not for parity, but for clarity. Behind this great barrage of sentiment, encumbered as it is with statistics, the British Navy has to work. It cannot do its job, any more than the right hon. Gentleman can do his job, as long as it is subject to the threat of constant reductions in accordance with an involved mathematical formula.
The Navy has a right to know, just as the country has a right to know, what its substantive strength should be, and whether the Navy is a permanent profession or not. We have already found ourselves handicapped in getting recruits for the Army because of the uncertainty of the career. We shall soon find ourselves in the same position with regard to the Navy. Equally, those who build the Navy have a right to know whether or not Geneva is going to throw them out of a job. We must manage our Navy in accordance with the needs of our position, the needs, not of what France or Germany or America may tell us, but the needs of our own employed and unemployed. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, while congratulating him sincerely on what appears to have been a fine achievement, to give us clarity as well as parity.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on his very fine speech, which was full of eloquence and interested us all very much. I join with him in congratulating the First Lord and the Foreign Secretary for the work that they have lately accomplished in getting France and Italy back into the Naval Conference. It is a great achievement on their part, and I do not think that the country appreciates it quite enough, for, if we had a race in armaments in Europe, a great deal of the London Agreement would be upset. When I read the First Lord's statement, however, I cannot congratulate him, because in his absence, the Naval Lords, I am afraid,
have got at him. On page 4, he says that he cannot expand the Naval Air Arm owing to financial restrictions. A little further I notice that for the first time we are to have three seaplane carriers working with the Fleet. In 1914 we introduced aircraft carriers, and at this distant date we are to have only three working with the Fleet for the first time. When I turn over the pages of the First Lord's statement, I find that we have only four catapults fitted in three ships and one submarine. In 1915 we first started looking into catapults, and yet in 16 years we have fitted only four to four vessels. I would like the First Lord to tell us how many catapults are fitted in the battleships and cruisers of the United States. It is an important point.
I would also like to ask him how he can justify our Navy having only 142 aircraft, when the United States have over 700. He gave the wrong figure the other day when he said that the United States had 340 aircraft; they have over 700, and the Japanese have over 300. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify us having only 142 and reducing the Naval Air Arm owing to financial stringency? I would like to put my analytical probe into "financial stringency." In the White Paper issued at the time of the Naval Conference, Command Paper 3485, I find, on page 5, the following passage:
In the opinion of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the battleship, in view of its tremendous size and cost, is of doubtful utility, and the Government would wish to see agreement by which the battleship would in due time disappear altogether from the fleets of the world.
Then Lord Parmoor in another place said this. I am quoting from the House of Lords Parliamentary Debates of 8th May, 1930:
As far as one can foresee, it appears to me that by 1936 there will be a general world opinion that the capital ship is in the nature of an archaism, and not the sort of fighting machine wanted under the conditions which will then exist.
In Command Paper 3547, on page 5, this is said:
Further, the financial saving involved in reducing at once to 15 capital ships is estimated at about £4,000,000.
A great many people consider that the day of the capital ship is over, and yet we expend a considerable sum of money—probably between £7,000,000 and £12,000,000; I hope that the First Lord
will give the figure—on keeping these 15 capital ships in commission. We are keeping in commission these ships that are of doubtful value, and depriving the Air Arm of the proper number of machines. The whole question ought to be gone into carefully. I am not the only person who says that the capital ships are of no value; I have preached that in the House of Commons for 10 years. One of the oldest brainwaves of the Admiralty, a captain who retired lately, named Acworth, has written a book in which he comes round to my view, and says that the capital ships should be of only 12,000 tons. I have always said that they should be 10,000 tons and come within the international agreement. Admiral Richmond says the same, that these great capital ships are no use. There is a strong body of opinion throughout the country and among naval officers that these great capital ships are practically useless, and have only a slight potential value. We saw the other day that one went through the Panama Canal. That shows the sort of value they have now—to carry on social intercourse and to pay back calls on another nation, or to demonstrate against the Turk. That can be done perfectly well with a 10,000-ton cruiser.
I only hope that the Economy Committee, when it is set up, will have for Chairman a man like Sir Eric Geddes, who understands a certain amount about the Navy and the Air, and who would put his finger on the spot and say, "You have to reduce this unnecessary expenditure on the upkeep of these out-of-date ships." I hope that the outcome of that committee will be that we shall have a Ministry of Defence, so that we shall have a Minister who will be over the Admiralty and be able to say to them, "You stop building these dud battleships, and expand the weapons that are of some use; equip your cruisers with up-to-date catapults, and provide proper aircraft for working with the Fleet." I see opposite an hon. Member whose son has lately gone as an officer in the mercantile marine. Suppose that there were a war. What would he be exposed to? He would be exposed to submarine attack and aircraft carriers dropping bombs on his convoy. These are the menaces which we have to face. They have nothing to do with battleships;
they do not come into the picture. The whole question of the ships in the Navy, as Captain Acworth says in his book, wants overhauling in order to see that we get the right type of craft in the Navy to bring it up to a high state of efficiency.
I want to say a word about submarines. As an old submarine officer, I do not, like the agreement with France which allows her to have a very high tonnage of submarines. A French writer, "Pertinax," not long ago wrote in a French paper that with 75 submarines the French nation could bring this country to her knees. Yet we make an agreement with France that she can increase her submarine tonnage. I should like to ask the First Lord a question about his design of submarines. The United States have the B4 class, we have the X1 class, and the French the Surcoff, a very large submarine of over 4,000 tons submarine displacement. She has a speed on the surface of 21 knots, and under the water a speed of 11 knots; she carries two eight-inch guns, and she is armoured and has very fine lines under water. I would like to know whether the submarine experience of this country is in accord with having these large submarines or with submarines of more moderate tonnage. As an old submarine officer, I believe those ships are too large. The question ought to be gone into, and we ought not to repeat such very large-tonnage submarines.
I notice that it is stated in the White Paper that the Navy has been experimenting with the Davis apparatus for saving life from submarines. I think the First Lord ought to have told us what is the greatest depth of water from which a submarine crew can be saved—whether it is efficient up to a depth of a good many fathoms or not; and whether it compares well with the apparatus in use in the United States, where they appear to have conducted some wonderful experiments. Pontoons are being provided for raising submarines, I notice also, and I think the House would like to know from, what depth we can raise a submarine and what tonnage can be raised—a very important point.
I hope the First Lord will bear with me whilst I touch upon training in submarines. In the submarine service the
men need to be thoroughly expert in looking after their submarines. The captain in charge of a submarine flotilla is responsible for the efficiency of all the submarines in that flotilla. He is responsible for seeing that the crews are properly trained, and for seeing that the apparatus for flooding ballast tanks and for blowing ballast tanks, the electric batteries, the engines for working when on the surface, the periscope, the gyroscope compass and all the rest, are in order, and that the men are trained for their work. I think the First Lord will agree that I am not over-stating the case when I say there is a great responsibility upon the captain-in-charge of a flotilla of submarines, a far greater responsibility than in the case of surface ships. If there is a collision in the case of a surface ship there may not be a disaster—the ship may put a collision mat over the hole and return to port; but if there is an accident with a submarine and she is not efficient she will probably sink.
From this I pass to the incident of the "Lucia," mentioned in the speech of the First Lord. She is a depot ship, with a captain in charge of a submarine flotilla. A signal was made to the Commander-in-Chief to put that ship out of routine, and that was approved. The first lieutenant ordered some paint work to be done on Sunday, and some of the crew objected. Personally, I think the first lieutenant was a fool to give that order, but anyhow, he did. Some of the men did not obey the order, and they were nightly punished by the Admiralty, but I think the First Lord has given way to what was said in the popular Press about it when he comes down to the House and tells us that the captain, the first lieutenant and another officer incurred their Lordships' displeasure and are to be placed on half pay. I do think he ought not to have given way to that popular clamour in the Press. It is bad for the Service. There was a submarine officer in charge of a flotilla of submarines. On him lay the great responsibility of having his boats efficient. How can he "take on" the painting of a portion of the ship? I submit it was most unfair to the captain in charge of the submarine depot ship. He was probably carrying out work in connection with his flotilla and did not know what
was happening about the painting of the ship.
I am one of the pioneers of the submarine service. I started the experiments when submarines were introduced into the Navy, working with Admiral Bacon 30 years ago, and as an old submarine officer I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, across the Floor of this House, whether he will go into the case of the captain of the "Lucia" to see whether something cannot be done and to see that he is not unfairly treated. I feel very strongly about this. I do not know that officer, I had never heard of him, I do not know his name, but as an old submarine officer I feel that he ought not to have been censured by the First Lord of the Admiralty on the Floor of this House. I have no more to say, except that I do hope this matter may be looked into.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I reply now to the points which have been put to me, so that we can then proceed with the Motion standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I will deal at once with the last point which has just been put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter). With all his experience of the Service he is, of course, entitled to give his view of the way in which the Board of Admiralty dealt with the incident to which he has referred; but I must claim the right for the Board of Admiralty to have its view and to make the decision which it arrived at from its inside knowledge of the case and after having considered the whole of the detailed evidence, not only of the court of inquiry, but of the court-martial. Whilst he, with his experience of the Service, may resent the fact that any public mention was made of the officers in the case, I am quite convinced that the attitude adopted by the Board of Admiralty was perfectly right and just, and that, so far as there was responsibility, either on the part of the men or of the officers, for the unfortunate incident which occurred, the blame has been rightly apportioned by the Board of Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Member asked me whether I would reconsider the case of the officer who was
in charge of the depot ship. I certainly could not promise to reconsider the case, but I would remind the hon. Member of the position. The position is that the men who offended against the disciplinary rules of the Service have been dealt with. The decision of the Board of Admiralty with regard to two officers was announced. They were not dismissed from their ship in the ordinary way, they were relieved of their appointments, and there is no reason why the Board of Admiralty should not consider them for future appointments. I think the hon. and gallant Member ought to be content to leave things in that position.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Thank you, very much.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Member has also protested about our general position in regard to the Fleet Air Arm. I should be telling an untruth if I stood at this Box and said that I was perfectly satisfied with the speed of the development of the Fleet Air Arm, but it must be remembered that we have to keep in mind the financial position. He argued that we could save a great deal of money on the capital ships which could be used for the development of the Air Arm. I would remind him that though he has put his case on that paint year after year for about 10 years he can call only one or two stalwarts to his aid in arguing for the abolition of the capital ship as we know it and reducing it to 10,000 tons and that his views are in a minority amongst naval officers.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Will you give consideration to the opinion of Admiral Richmond?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The opinion of Admiral Richmond is well known from his articles in the "Times" during the London Naval Conference. I am not offering an opinion as a layman one way or the other. We have left over for complete revision and reconsideration the whole question of the capital ship; but I still hold the view that the majority of naval opinion is against the opinion expressed by the hon. and gallant Member.
Another point he put to me was the concern he felt about the amount of
French submarine tonnage which had been inserted in the agreement arrived at during our recent visit to Paris and Rome. I think I said in my speech that we felt the figure of 81,900 tons to be far too high. All I can say about that is this, that we shall not be content to rest upon our destroyer tonnage after Geneva if no better result than that is obtained, and we have made that perfectly plain in the conversations we have had and in the reservations we have made. But I beg the House also to remember that it is a very different figure from that which we should have seen if we had not arrived at an agreement. We have to keep two things in mind, first, the original programme of submarines that the French nation drew up under their 10 years' programme in the Statute of 1923–24.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Will you give the tonnage?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Under that Statute ultimately the figure was to be 125,000 tons, and the figure given for 1936, in the course of the London Naval Conference, was only a ton or two under 100,000 tone. I think it will be seen that though we have to make the reservation that while the tonnage remains over 80,000 we must be free to take what effective steps we think fit in the matter of destroyers after Geneva, that, at the same time, we have made very considerable progress in that particular direction. I have not had the opportunity since the hon. and gallant Member spoke of getting a detailed and technical answer to his question about pontoons, and I am sure he would not expect me to answer that question to-night. It was an interesting point, and I shall certainly look into it and we shall be very glad to confer with the hon. and gallant Member on that question. I have no reason to believe, from the reports submitted to me, that the Davis submarine escape apparatus is not at least as efficient as the apparatus used by the United States Navy, and the fact that we have now distributed this apparatus for training right through the submarine fleet is, I think, the best evidence that that is so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has interested, and shall I say amused, the House with
his speech, but I could not help thinking that we had that delightful phrasing and gentle leg-pulling because he had very little in the way of criticism to offer. It was absolutely imperative for a dockyard Member to let his constituency know that he was really looking after its interests, but at the same time he found so little to criticise that he had to draw upon the resources which we all know him to possess—his great literary ability, a very elastic mind and a very good imagination. He made a very good story, but I think we may brush it aside as a real measure of criticism. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place, was very busy giving us the same speech which he has made each year on Navy Estimates ever since I have been a Member of the House, and although we are very fond of him and would be very sorry if anything were to happen to him, I do not think it is necessary for me to reply in detail to that speech.
The late Civil Lord of the Admiralty the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) very kindly offered me his congratulations for what we had been able to achieve in the Agreement, and went on to advocate the naval control of the Fleet Air Arm. It is a great pity that he had not pressed previous Governments in this respect during the last 10 years. I agree that things would have been very much better in those circumstances, but it is more difficult to secure a change now in view of later developments. I think there is a very great deal to be said from the point of view that there should be more control by the Admiralty and it is sometimes a handicap to have a dual control of the air side when one is considering the question of the air arm of the Fleet.

Mr. LAMBERT: Are the Board of Admiralty really satisfied with this divided control as far as the Fleet Air Arm is concerned.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a straight question but it is not always easy to reply in public to straight questions. I think however that the Board of Admiralty would be ready to say that they are
working much more harmoniously in regard to these matters than has been the case in the past and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press me more on that point at the moment. I apologise to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for not being present while he was making his speech, but I have had some notes made, and I will endeavour to deal with the points which he raised. First of all, I understand that he is of the opinion that the agreement between France and Italy has actually wiped out the ratios in the capital ship category under the Washington Treaty.

Mr. ROSS: The point I tried to make was that the ratio of the Washington Treaty applied to capital ships is not being applied to other classes, and that numbers as regards other classes have been abandoned in this Agreement.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am afraid that point is not very clear to me.

Mr. ROSS: May I endeavour to make it clear, because it is a point of some importance. There was a certain proportion of strength applied to capital ships at Washington, and it was assumed that this would have been applied in some respects as regards cruisers, destroyers and submarines under the London Treaty, but in this Treaty there is no attempt to apply that at all, and I think the First Lord is mistaken.

Mr. ALEXANDER: There has certainly been an attempt in the London Naval Treaty to get definite ratios in regard to other categories, but we have not aimed at the same percentage in other ships as in the case of capital ships. In the Agreement between France and Italy we have not tried in every single class to deal with the matter on the basis of the Washington ratio but we have tried to get the best agreement that we can in the circumstances. Having regard to the circumstances in which we were placed two or three weeks ago I think we have made very substantial progress indeed. The hon. Member for Londonderry asked whether Part III of the London Agreement had been accepted by France.

Mr. ROSS: I said that they had accepted the principle of Part III but my question was whether the arrangement as to destroyer leaders had been accepted by France.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member overlooks the fact that by the tentative agreement at London which was not recorded, but which has now been included in the technical basis for discussion next year by the Preparatory Commission the French destroyers and B class or light 6-inch gun cruisers are to be put into one category and therefore it is not necessary to agree as to the actual limit of the ship unit. The point is that they must have a top limit of guns and a limit of tonnage in what I may call the global category of the two classes of ships, the light cruisers and destroyers. The hon. and gallant Member said that France had a considerable advantage in small cruisers and that we are actually inferior in destroyers. My hon. Friend cannot judge of the position by taking the figures of this country either in destroyers alone or in light cruisers alone, but we must take into account the fact that our light cruiser tonnage is 192,000 and our destroyers figure is at least 150,000 tons, and together you get 342,000 tons. It must be borne in mind that that is the joint figure of the cruiser and destroyer tonnage, and from that it will be seen that there is a considerable superiority for this country in that respect.

Mr. ROSS: I also made the point that we had not anything like built up our flotillas. Up to date we have 80,000 tons of over age and things are getting worse.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It may be that because the late Conservative Government did not keep up the tonnage of destroyers we shall have to carry a few over-age destroyers, but I do not think there is any cause for great anxiety that within the life set down in the Treaty you will not get a proper under-age Fleet in that category.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that by the end of 1936 under the construction programme for destroyers there will be no continuity for the four years from 1930, and we shall have a complete squadron of destroyer ships not over age?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I did not say that. What I stated was that it might be necessary on the basis which had been laid down to carry in the Fleet a certain number of over-age destroyers.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: How many?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am quite sure that the hon. and gallant Member with his technical knowledge will be able to work that out. I cannot possibly accept from the point of view of the Government the interpretation which has been placed upon the London Naval Treaty by hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members always want to take the basis of a 16 years' life for cruisers and a 12 years' life for destroyers laid down before 1921. I think I made it perfectly clear in the naval Debate last year that we do not accept so short a life as 12 years for destroyers or 16 years for cruisers. I think on that occasion I made it plain that the Government only consented to include 12 years for destroyers and 16 years for cruisers for the convenience of Japan because that country was making great sacrifices in order to come under the Treaty and without this provision would have had no new building during the period of the Treaty. With regard to what has been said about a lesser life, I refused to consent to the replacement of our fleet on that basis. I think if we take the rate of 20 years for cruisers and 16 years for destroyers it will be found that the replacement programme will give to us an adequate and efficient fleet within the limits of the London Naval Treaty.
I have been asked one or two specific questions about dockyard work and whether tenders had been obtained in regard to certain ships. I cannot say that in every case and on every job which Is undertaken in the Royal Dockyards tenders are obtained for that particular job but I may say that we take good care to see that similar contract jobs are measured up and carefully checked and compared with the cost of production in the dockyard. Another question put to me was in regard to the effect that the reduction of personnel would have but hon. Members may rest assured that what is proposed will not interfere with the efficiency of the Navy. We have cut down Vote A because there has been a reduction in the number of ships and in some cases in the size of the ship. It is always very difficult in peace time to arrange these matters because the Government have only a very small margin on which to work, but hon. Members may rest assured
that this point will receive attention. I have been asked a question by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) with regard to oil fuel but I am sure I shall not be expected to answer that question in detail because it would not be in the public interest. Hon. Members are entitled to ask if the Admiralty are satisfied that they are not interfering with the efficiency of the service in regard to the use of oil fuel and on that point I may say that the Government are satisfied.

Mr. AMERY: Are the Admiralty satisfied?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am speaking on behalf of the Government of the day and they take the responsibility. I am very anxious to give hon. Members all the information they require and I hope that I have now covered all the points which have been raised in the Debate. May I in conclusion say that I am exceedingly obliged to hon. Members for the courteous way in which they have referred to the opening of the Debate to-day and to thank them for the congratulations which they have offered to the Government on the agreement which has been made with France and Italy.

OIL FUEL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
in the opinion of this House, it is desirable for strategic and economic reasons and to help in providing employment that energetic steps be taken to encourage the use of oil fuel for the Royal Navy from our own coal.
8.0 p.m.
This Resolution follows very naturally on the Debate that we have had this afternoon and on the statement made by the First Lord, which, I submit, makes my Resolution particularly topical. This is the 13th Navy Estimate at which I have assisted in this House, and I must admit that I have usually been somewhat critical, and have attempted, perhaps rather strenuously, to safeguard the pockets of the taxpayers. On this occasion, however, I am going to make some constructive suggestions, which I hope Ministers will not resent. Indeed, I happen to know that this particular
Resolution is not unwelcome to the Admiralty, and I am not moving it in any hostile spirit.
Oil fuel, the subject of the Resolution, is the Achilles' heel of the Navy. The whole Navy now, with the exception of a few river gunboats, is oil-burning, and at the present moment we are almost entirely dependent on oversea supplies of oil, by far the larger proportion of which comes from outside the British Empire. At the present time, 90 per cent. of the oil fuel available to us comes from the Gulf of Mexico—from the United States or from Mexico; and it is perfectly obvious that in certain eventualities, simply by political action on the part of the United States Government, that oil could be shut off from us altogether. The remainder of the oil required by us would have to come through the Mediterranean or round the Cape. My reason for saying that this Resolution is very topical is that submarine-building is going on unchecked, and undoubtedly, in time of war, if we were faced by a hostile Power, its submarines would concentrate on our oil tankers. They would be foolish not to do so. We should be injured much more severely by cutting off our oil tankers, as things are to-day, than by cutting off our wheat supplies, because we can grow wheat in our own country, and we can get food from the Continent of Europe just across the Channel, but our oil comes hundreds, and in most cases thousands, of miles, and the cutting off of our oil fuel supplies would hopelessly cripple the Navy.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) twitted me just now with having made pacifist utterances, but I hope we are all pacifists in this House after our experiences a few years ago. Nevertheless, we do maintain a Navy at very great cost, and it is obvious that the possibility of war is in the mind of the present Government, and these matters are, therefore, of great strategical importance. I would also remind the House that under the international law, which we accept, the right of capture at sea remains; there is no immunity for peaceful merchant shipping; the great American doctrine of the freedom of the seas has not been accepted. Therefore, all sea-borne supplies will be open to attack in time of war, and undoubtedly
such attack will be concentrated upon oil tankers.
What would happen if our oil supplies were cut off? Not a warship could put to sea. Not an aeroplane could leave the ground. Our Army would be immobilised. It is becoming more and more mechanised. Where it used to be said that an army moved on its belly, now it moves on its petrol tanks. The great Duke of Wellington was once asked what was the first requirement of an army, and he replied, "Boots." He was then asked what was the second requirement, and again he replied, "Boots"; and, to still another question as to what was the third requirement, once more he answered "Boots." That was because boots on the feet of the soldiers were the motive power of armies. To-day a modern Wellington, if asked the same questions, would reply "Petrol."
If our oil supplies were cut off, as could easily be done in present circumstances, the Army would be completely immobilised; but, more than that, 30 per cent. of the gross tonnage of the British Mercantile Marine is now using oil fuel, and it would be absolutely necessary that whoever was responsible for the conduct of the Board of Admiralty should protect the oil supplies for the Mercantile Marine. Moreover, the life of the community here would be crippled. We are turning over to oil—imported foreign oil—at a tremendous rate. All these new buildings, blocks of flats, and modern offices that are now being built in London are heated by central heating with oil fuel. Our transport system also is more and more dependent on oil fuel, and the cutting off of these supplies would strangle the industrial and civil life of the community.
I would also remind the House that there is another kind of oil which is very often overlooked, but which is very important, and that is lubricating oil, because without lubricating oil you cannot send even a coal-burning ship to sea. At present we produce practically no lubricating oil in this country. I will not go into this question at length; it is a highly technical question; but, if any of my hon. Friends are interested in this point—and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie)
has made a very close study of it—I would draw attention to a paper that was read before the Institute of Petroleum Technologists on the 1st November, 1930, by Professor Nash, on the production of lubricating oil from coal, showing that it is a perfectly feasible proposition at the present time.
What about the dangers? People may say that it is all right—that as long as the Navy is strong enough it can safeguard the lines of communication so that we shall be able to get all the cheap oil that we want from Rumania, Russia, Mexico, Persia, or wherever else it comes from. This is why my Resolution is particularly apposite. The Mediterranean route, in certain eventualities, will be most dangerous. I would remind the House that, according to the figures read by my right hon. Friend, the French Government is proceeding, even after this agreement, to build more submarines than Germany was building in the heat of the naval competition before the War. The Mediterranean route can be extraordinarily hazardous in time of war, and that is the route which is followed by our oil supplies from Persia and Iraq. It may be said that our tankers could be sent round the Cape, but round the Cape they will be subject to attack by long-range submarines, in regard to which great technical advances have been made in recent years. In addition to the submarine menace, there is the growing menace of air attack. From air stations in France and Italy, the whole Mediterranean sea route could be dominated by aircraft flown from the shore—a most menacing form of threat to merchant ships; and undoubtedly oil tankers would be bombed from the air out of hand. Then, again, the oil supplies of Persia might be subjected to tribal disturbances, and the same thing applies to Iraq; while supplies from Russia would have to come through the Dardanelles and also through the Mediterranean, and in Rumania social upheavals may occur. The result would be that our oil supplies to-day, only 2 per cent. of which is produced within the British Empire, would be always liable to interruption.
The Navy, for good or ill, has gone over to oil. There are many who say that a mistake was made in the first place in going over to oil at all, and that we
should have stuck to coal; and it is the fashion to attack the late Lord Fisher. I went through that controversy in the Navy. The late Lord Fisher, whatever may be said about him, was a man of very great vision. He was not understood by a lot of little men, who tried to pull him down because they did not understand his greatness. He made his mistakes, as all great men do, but with regard to this question I think he was right. He always said that eventually we should get our oil from our own coal supplies, and he was only a few years before his time, and when that happens we shall not only get the advantages of oil, but at the same time we shall be using our own incomparable resources, which are buried hundreds of feet under the ground where no aeroplane can attack them.
It may be said that, in view of the precarious position of oil supplies in this country, we should go back to coal altogether. The argument against that is, quite briefly, that with oil, for the same displacement, you can get a far larger radius of action and a great saving of personnel. [Interruption.] Take, for example, as I am reminded by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington, the coal-burning "Tiger," with an engine-room complement of 608, and the "Hood," a much larger vessel—indeed, the largest warship in the world—which has an engine-room complement of 305; that is to say, only half the number of personnel for a far greater horse-power.
Moreover, there is also the question of the speed of oiling and the possibility of refuelling ships at sea, which gives an immense advantage. Nevertheless, there are some most promising experiments which have been carried out with powdered fuel, and my first constructive suggestion to my right hon. Friend is that the Admiralty should encourage the use of powdered fuel as far as they possibly can for the mercantile marine, in order that the pressure on the oil supplies may be thereby reduced. Some extraordinarily interesting experiments have also been made on the use of coal in the colloidal form, that is to say, powdered coal mixed with oil. Oil tar and other oils can be used in that way. Powdered fuel, however, for warships, will give a radius of action
30 per cent. less than oil, and, therefore, it is strategically unsound. It is not, however, necessary, because, as I am going to show presently, the whole of our needs in regard to oil can be produced from our own resources. I do not make that statement lightly; I make it advisedly, and I will attempt to satisfy my hon. Friends that I am right in this matter.
Now I am going to try to make out my case. There are to-day no technical or scientific difficulties in the way of extracting from our own coal resources the whole of the oil that we need, not only for the Navy but for the whole nation—the £46,000,000 worth that we import from foreign sources. I would refer any hon. Member who is interested to the voluminous technical literature on this subject, and particularly to the most interesting report which was published recently by the Fuel Research Board. In spite of much discouragement, and ignorant attacks from rather stupid people in this House, they have laboured on and have done great national service. I refer hon. Members to the most interesting report just published, up to 31st March, 1930, and many other technical works on the subject. This is now quite an old story. I have in my hand the report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was the chairman. They refer to liquid fuel which can be obtained from coal, and they say:
If it were possible to subject to this process the bulk of the 147,000,000 tons of coal now consumed in the raw state, the greater part at least of our present requirements in oil could be supplied from home sources instead of being imported from abroad.
They went on to deal with the subject at great length, and in a very interesting way. Since then great technical advances have been made. One of their recommendations was that there should be set up a national Fuel and Power Committee, and one of the few good things the last Government did was to carry out that recommendation, whereas one of the few really bad things that this Government has done has been to allow that Committee to die. I should like to quote one sentence from its valuable report published in 1928:
The national advantages to be obtained from any scheme which offers a possibility of adapting our national fuel to purposes for which at present we are dependent on imported fuel are so great that the fullest and most patient investigation is imperative.
The fact is that there is an economic side to this question. My right hon. Friend is only asking for about £2,000,000 for his oil and so on. If you look at the industrial history of the country, you will see that, when the industrial revolution came, we became prosperous. Gas was invented and utilised from coal. We remained prosperous and increased our prosperity. Then came electricity, 90 per cent. of which is generated from coal. We still continued our upward grade. Then came oil. Every ton of oil that is brought into the country puts three miners out of work for a day. The turnover to imported foreign oil, the purchase of which perhaps gives work to workmen in Persia or Mexico or Texas, is putting the economic balance against us and doing great injury to the country. Last year the oil that we imported was worth £46,486,000, compared with £43,000,000 in 1929. The amount is rising substantially every year. Of that, £26,000,000 was for petrol, which is absolutely essential for the Royal Navy, compared with £22,780,000 in 1929—a very striking advance. Although the price of petrol has slumped, the imports have increased in value by £3,000,000. In the meantime we have 250,000 miners unemployed.
My right hon. Friend referred to this question very briefly. He said the oil produced from our coal had been tested and had given satisfactory results. There were no technical difficulties at all, but there were commercial difficulties. I suppose we are spending at least £10,000,000 in unemployment benefit for the 200,000 miners displaced. What chance have they of being re-absorbed into the industry as things are going now? It is not the £10,000,000 that I mind to keep them and their families at a very low level of subsistence; it is the moral effect, the disheartening, the demoralisation of these men and the long years of idleness. They are some of the finest people we have in the country. I beg my right hon. Friend not to talk too much of the commercial side. He may have to pay a little more for his oil produced from coal although, if it is carry-
ing out a great national scheme, that is not very much. You make the country safe, you restore the economic balance and you put men to work which they would rather do than be idle. Do not talk too much of the economic difficulties and the extra price. If he has trouble with the Treasury, let him come to the party that supports the Government in the House. We can put the Treasury to rights.
My right hon. Friend, with the other two Services, buys about 30,000 tons of petrol a year. If you can erect your plant and produce petrol in time of emergency, you can easily turn it to produce oil fuel and by hydrogenation, it may be produced with about 100,000 tons of coal. I am not suggesting that we should rely only on hydrogenation. It is no use putting all our eggs into one basket. Even a very great hydrogenation plant would not produce the oil fuel that he needs for the Navy in time of peace, and he must be able to expand his sources of supply in time of war. It may be asked why is this process, which is scientifically and technically possible, not developed commercially. It is to a certain extent, but one of the reasons is that oil has, perhaps, suffered most from the catastrophic fall in world prices, and to-day hydrogenation, which has made far greater advances in the United States than here, where it is used to treat natural oil, produces petrol at about 20 cents a gallon, which two or three years ago was a good price. But to-day petrol is being loaded, ex-Gulf, at five cents a gallon, and it is being landed here c.i.f., owing to over production and the economic collapse in Rumania, at 2½d. a gallon. Fuel oil from Rumania is being landed at 17s. and 20s. a ton. I do not know what he is paying for oil fuel, and I am not going to ask, but, if the very efficient contract department is paying about £2 10s. or £2 15s. a ton over a long period, they are not doing badly, taking into account the cost of transport.
Of course, the needs of the Navy in peace time are of the order of 1,000,000 tons a year of oil fuel. One of the troubles at present is that, owing to lack of understanding of this problem some years ago, we make no difference in this country between petrol produced here from natural oil and imported petrol. If
you could produce petrol in this country from oil fuel, the same thing with a slight change in distillation, or whatever the process is, well and good, you get the rebate of 4d. a gallon in taxation. But, if you crack it from imported natural petroleum, you get no advantage at all, and we are about the only important country that does not give any advantage.
My second suggestion, which my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty should very carefully consider, is that he should look into this matter, and see if he can persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a differential tariff. It is not merely a question of a small tariff of 4d. a gallon upon imported petrol or upon imported hydro-carbon oils, but of building up a great industry in this country by cracking or distilling the natural oil, following the practice of the skilled engineers. You could, in time of emergency, make use of the same cracking and distilling plant for war purposes. You could treat enormous quantities of coal tar produced by coke ovens and gas ovens, and you could have the advantage of skilled technical practice, just as the Germans before the War had a great dye industry, and chemical factories and other works, which could be turned very quickly to the production of poison gas and munitions. If you had a cracking industry you could not only give employment, but you would have a plant that, in emergency, could be put on to cracking the tar that is produced by high-temperature and low - temperature methods.
A great many hon. Members have been good enough to show interest in this subject. Several times I have been asked whether I was going to advocate low-temperature carbonisation. This matter has got to be viewed from a wide, national standpoint. To produce all our oil economically from our own coal supplies, we have to be able to treat the immense quantities of tar that are produced in the gas works and coke ovens, and also to develop low-temperature carbonisation of the coal. Also we have to use hydrogenation. Our Scottish shale must be developed to the utmost. In a few years' time we ought to have a great national plan. We ought not to have any more bickering between the gas
industry and the electrical industry, or any jealousy between the high and low-temperature carbonisation experts, or any more Stock Exchange speculations in connection with low-temperature carbonisation, for this has been one of the things that has put the whole subject back. It is most unfortunate. You have to get away from all that, and look at the subject from a broad, national standpoint. You have to use the whole of your resources in the most economical way. I hope that this suggestion will be very carefully looked into. It is just like the case for helping and fostering the national shipyards and the mercantile shipyards, because you can switch them all over in time of war to build warships. Exactly the same simile may be used by the First Lord of the Admiralty as an argument, if he wants one in order to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Admiralty is taking full advantage of the world slump in oil and petrol for its requirements. I am not sure whether we can rely upon this cheap price for oils in the future. There is a great deal of difference of opinion amongst scientists and experts and other knowledgeable persons. It is not at all certain that in 15 years there will not be a shortage of oil, and whether the natural oil is not being used most wastefully. There is an attempt at conservation in the United States, although the oil interests say that there is any amount of reserve oil, not to mention Iraq and Mosul, and the rest of the places. Nevertheless, there are very eminent scientists who say that we cannot rely upon a continued glut. In the United States a very serious effort is being made, on antitrust lines, which will allow conservation of resources and limitation of output, and therefore, the fixing of prices and a monopolistic price. It is quite possible that in eight or 10 years we may be back at 4s. a gallon for petrol, and that the price of oil fuel will go up, too. If we get cut short in that way, the whole country will suffer.
I want, very briefly, to go over the sources of supply. I am going to try to show the First Lord of the Admiralty how, if he displays the same efficiency, the same energy and vigour that he has shown in fighting for his ratios and tonnages and puts the same efficiency into
this business, he can make us self-supporting in oil from our own coal in a few years' time. I start with the comparatively small but well-tried source of supply. Scottish shale. It is producing petrol now, which is being sold to the public, I believe. About 21 gallons are produced from a ton of shale, and can be produced with the existing plant at the rate of about 170,000 tons a year. That is very little compared with our requirements. I understand that the Scottish shale industry is suffering severely from the slump and the dumping of petrol from abroad, and that some of the plant has to close down. It simply does not pay. The Anglo-Persian owns the plant. Down in South Wales they are treating imported oil for the production of petrol and oil fuel, and it does not pay to go on with the shale. The wax is keeping them going at the present time, I understand. The shale supplies are not sufficient for our needs, but they are a valuable aid, and must be used and developed.
Then we have the high-temperature tar to which I have referred, and the low-temperature tar from the low-temperature process. From the point of view of obtaining oil fuel and motor spirit, both very necessary to the Navy, the low-temperature method is, of course, the most suitable. At the present time, we are producing on full work, about 24,000 tons of low-temperature tar from 260,000 tons of coal. The industry is fairly well established now, producing gas, coke and tar. From that tar you can produce petrol or crude oil, just as you please. The process must be developed enormously, to allow it to fill the gap. That means, of course, a greater use of smokeless fuel. The key to the problem is the 40,000,000 tons of raw coal which are burnt in the domestic grate, polluting the atmosphere and doing at least £40,000,000 damage and even more according to competent authorities.
Then there are the 60,000,000 tons of small coal and coal dust and slack which is lying wasted in the coal mines. A very great quantity of coal is too small or of too poor quality to be sold, and is left underground. My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn will be able to say more on that subject.
The next thing to do is to explore really seriously the possibility of doing something to check the burning of raw coal in the present wasteful way. We cannot afford to do it. If you encourage the use of smokeless fuel from low-temperature methods, of course, you can use also the high-temperature coke in suitable grates as well—then you have more tar and you can get more oil. The First Lord of the Admiralty whispers a little jest to me. He is not sure that the people of this country would assist him. I believe they would if it were properly explained as being in the national interest. Well, I have made certain suggestions to the Board of Trade in the matter of smokeless fuel which, I understand, are going to be investigated. I do not think it is impossible.
Now we come to a very interesting question, the method of hydrogenation about which everyone is talking just now. The price of oil produced by hydrogenation, whether directly upon solid coal or indirectly upon the high-temperature or low-temperature tar, depends upon the cost of pure hydrogen. About that I have some doubts, and I would be very glad of information. My present information is that the price of pure hydrogen produced by the German Farben I.G. Industrie, who are a very great chemical firm, is about four pfennigs per cubic metre. That works out at 4d. per gallon of petrol produced by the hydrogenous process. Quite apart from the cost of the coal and the labour and other charges, there is a cost of 4d. per gallon. I understand that it is claimed that petrol can be produced at round about 9d. or 1s., or something in between, by hydrogenation. I speak of petrol because petrol is readily saleable, and has been described by the Research Board in their very admirable report. The production of petrol in this way has the advantage that in time of emergency the staff can be turned over to the production of oil fuel for the fleet and petrol for the aeroplanes or motor boats. High-temperature tar and low-temperature tar can be either hydrogenated or cracked by various processes.
There is another very interesting process by which steam and tar are injected into a retort of a special alloy, which acts as a catalyst. Hydrogen in steam
produces spirit and oil from the tar. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Major Church) knows this process, and it is certainly worthy of our attention. From high temperature tar we already produce benzol, which is a very valuable product and rather costly. From the 45,000,000 to 48,000,000 gallons per year of high temperature tar that is available, we could produce 32,000,000 gallons of motor fuel oil. Let me say a few words about hydrogenation. Briefly, its history is as follows. During the War the Germans had to get petrol from their own resources, and Bergius, a very distinguished German inventor, was given practically a free hand to develop the process of hydrogenation. It was only developed on a small scale in Germany because the German armies broke through Rumania, and obtained possession of the Rumanian oilfields. Therefore, it was not necessary to develop the process on a large scale. It was, however, kept alive and is kept alive to-day. Owing to the low world price of petrol the hydrogenation process in Germany is only just kept going.
It is sometimes said that the oil interests, and by that term I mean the producers and sellers of natural oil, are hostile to any movement being made to utilise our own coal resources to produce our own oil. I am, however, not quite sure that their hostility might be active. If they were given a hand in the distribution of the oil where they would make a profit, I think we should be able to get rid of any short-sighted hostility on their part. From the long-sighted point of view they would not be so foolish as to show hostility. I mention that, because it has been said that it is no good talking of this process or that process for the production of oil, because the natural oil interests are so powerful that they will stop it being done. Let them try. If we can make out our case, if research is continued further and the Admiralty get a move on, I do not believe that any vested interests will be allowed to stand in the way.
The Bergius process was rescued and kept alive so far as this country was concerned by our own Fuel Research Board. This is an important point, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take note of it. The Fuel
Research Board is the child of this House, paid for by public money, and it claims the credit of having kept alive this valuable process. Other countries have developed and improved the Bergius process, but the main credit is due to our own Fuel Research Board. That is a very good compliment to Government enterprise and Government research. Let me give a few details of the process. I mention this in order to show the extreme complexity of hydrogenation and the riskiness of it. You get the raw coal, powder it, and mix it with oil, which is the residue of the previous operation in the working of the apparatus. You then mix it with a powdered metal alloy to act as a catalyst. I should describe a catalyst as a substance which causes re actions between other substances without being affected itself. It acts, one might say, as the priest, marrying two substances, hydrogen and tar elements, to produce oil, or in certain cases, it divorces them.

Mr. HAYCOCK: A priest never divorces.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The resulting paste is then pumped into a bomb or steel cylinder under tremendous pressure with forced heat, pure hydrogen in applied, and you get after two or three treatments in a battery of bombs gas and oil, including petrol, which depends for its price very largely on the cost of pure hydrogen. From that process you can, I believe in practice, produce the greatest amount of petrol per ton of coal treated. The largest plant in operation in this country is a 10 tons of coal plant per day and the largest that I have seen is a one ton plant. A one thousand tons plant would cost a great many millions of pounds, and to put all your eggs into that basket is not very prudent. I am not trying to make out a case against hydrogenation. The process has gone a good deal further in the United States than in this country, where it has been used for treating natural tar. I am not at all convinced that there is not a great future for hydrogenating the substance that is produced from our own country's gas ovens, which has not yet been tried out, but I am looking at something far greater even than hydrogenating 1,000 tons a coal a day, which could not produce even the fuel oil that the Royal Navy requires.
The key of this problem is to be found in the 40,000,000 tons of raw coal that is burnt every year in our domestic grates and in the 60,000,000 tons of dust and slack which is wasted in the mines every year. In order to develop this great national product we shall have to use gas to a far greater extent than we do now for industrial purposes. I do not want to go into details—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) will do that—but investigations are going on with a view to a far greater use of gas, by means of the grid, or network. If we can use gas to a far greater extent than we do now we shall have more tar, and from the tar we can get more oil. I am not at all sure that the future electricity supplies of this country will not be most suitably and most economically produced by the use of gas industrially. If we could do what they are doing in Germany, we could use the rough gas from the blast furnaces in our coke ovens, and the gas from the latter could be used for industrial purposes. If we could develop a great gas industry, far greater than we have yet dreamt of in this country for industrial purposes, we should have more tar from which to produce more oil and thus make this country self-supporting as regards oil fuel and petrol, not only for the Fleet but for the whole country as well. I hope no one will quote the experience of the Gas Light and Coke Company in low temperature carbonisation. When you set a vegetarian to investigate mutton stew, you do not expect to get a very good result. There is undoubtedly rivalry between high and low temperature carbonisation, which is most unfortunate. If a tax of one-eighth of a penny was put on every gallon of imported petrol, which could not be passed on to the consumer, it would produce £500,000 a year, which could be the nucleus of a capital sum to be used for large scale experiments.
I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman has not utilised Rosyth dockyard for this purpose, and gone ahead with it. It is near the Scottish coalfields. He might also consider utilising Milford Haven, as I suggested 18 months ago. If he would bring his engineers and the practical men in the service of
the Navy, the chemists and the technicians, and would utilise these derelict dockyards, put up plant for the production of oil fuel from coal, he would be doing something to solve the problem of unemployment and assist the passage of the Navy Estimates next year. This is a large subject and I make no apology for having gone into it rather fully. It is important, as everyone will agree who has studied the question at all. I have heard the capital expenditure for perhaps 10 or 12 years put at £200,000,000 to make us self-supporting in oil fuel. I do not know whether that figure is exact, but I can imagine right hon. Members on the Front Government Bench being rather shocked at the mention of a sum of £200,000,000. We have, however, spent £1,100,000,000 on armaments during the last 10 years, and the interest and Sinking Fund on £200,000,000, spread over 20 years, is only about £12,500,000 a year. We are spending that amount on keeping 200,000 miners unemployed. I ask the First Lord to do something for the coal-mining industry and for the miners.
I have dealt with the strategic and economic arguments. Let me now say a word on the human argument. The present Government have found the miners faithful allies in good times and in bad. They have been good fighters in trade unionism and they were good soldiers in the War. I want to do something to help them. The whole Labour movement, the trade union side, made splendid sacrifices in order to help the miners in certain circumstances in 1926, and this party supported those workers who were helping the miners. We have an opportunity now, when we are in office with the support of the great majority of the people of this country, to do something practical to help the miners. A case can be made out for doing it on strategic grounds. I ask the Government, who have now had two years in which to look at this problem—I know that the First Lord engaged himself very early on it, because I saw to that, and that he has applied himself with great seriousness to the question—to do something in this important matter. It requires clear thinking, great courage and great energy, and I hope that the Labour Government will provide all these in face of this urgent problem, a solution of which is so necessary for the prosperity of this great industrial country.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to second the Amendment
In my opinion, it is quite proper that this important question should be discussed on the Navy Estimates. The nation is dependent on the Navy in certain circumstances, and it is absolutely necessary that this country should utilise to the full its own resources. If there are resources at our disposal which can be developed and used and thus make us independent of the imported material, surely it is a patriotic act to take whatever steps are necessary in order that these resources should be developed to the full. There can be no question as to the practicability of the proposal, there may be a question as to comparative costs. But what are costs? Are they entirely measured in pounds, shillings and pence. There are other sides to the balance sheet so far as costs are concerned. There is the human material; and we have all the necessary materials and also the men. There is no shortage of either. Something, however, is keeping these two forces idle, they are not coming into contact in order to produce that which we desire.
On the other hand, vested interests might secure a stranglehold upon the essential supplies which are so necessary to us that on an occasion of emergency it may well be that the raw materials so abundant at the moment might be withheld from us in case of war. The development of oil supplies might also create an entirely new atmosphere and condition of things so far as the propelling power is concerned in the Navy and mercantile marine. As one who has shovelled coal into the glaring furnace I can well appreciate the difference in the conditions which now exist in the mercantile marine in the stokehold, and if we could only develop the resources that are available to such an extent that we are able not only to supply the needs of the Navy but the merchant service as well, it would in turn react upon the welfare of the people engaged in the production.
The Government have their research department and are going into this question of the scientific treatment of coal. A fuel research station can, of course, play a more prominent part in the practical development of this oil supply if only given impetus and encouragement by the Admiralty and the Government. I know that that station is run by
capable fuel technologists, to whom we should ungrudgingly offer our praise for the work in which they are engaged in a somewhat restricted and handicapped way. As we have these very clever technologists we lack nothing in the way of science or personnel or raw material, and there should be a thorough try-out rather than the timid small-scale experiment which is going on. There should be no fear of running up against the vested interests which at the moment happen to hold the field, because the development of the fuel research station and its proper encouragement I am certain would prove a check upon the most extraordinary state of affairs that often occurs in connection with Stock Exchange quotations and promotions in many of the flotations that are taking place.
I feel certain that on sentimental grounds the appeal that I am making is not falling on deaf ears, but if only the Government would give a little more than general assent and sympathy to what we are urging and would give the practical push that is so desirable in the matter, from this Debate there might easily arise a great economic development that would create a new industry in this country. That in its turn would affect the comfort of the householder and of those who are now unemployed. I would like to see arising out of this fuel and power investigation and out of discussion of the methods of producing oil from the raw material, a little more order brought and less of the chaos and competition that appears to prevail.
At the moment we have the great gas industry engaged in the carbonisation [...]f the raw material for light or heat. We have great electricity undertakings using the same raw material. Why can there not be more united action in connection with all fuel-producing methods? Why should there not be, under one head, a general survey of the whole of these complicated industries, which at the moment are engaged in active competition with each other? All the time lost in competition means a loss of valuable opportunities for the nation itself. There are three methods of dealing with coal—high temperature carbonisation, low temperature carbonisation and hydrogenation. High temperature carbonisation is used mainly in the production of
gas and coal tar, and we know that from tar many very valuable products flow. But there is at the moment a glut of tar as a subsidiary product of the high temperature carbonisation for gas, and it is not, being used for the purpose of obtaining a very valuable material that is readily available. We know that in the main it is used for the purpose of tarring roads or in tar macadam—

9.0 p.m.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): I allowed the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) rather wide latitude. It appears to me that the hon. Member is now emphasising the national production of this oil, whereas the Amendment deals merely with the Navy's use of oil, so that the industry might develop. While I recognise that it is perhaps essential to go into some detail, the Amendment before the House refers to the use of oil by the Navy, and it will not be in order to go into the larger question of the Government promotion of a great national industry.

Mr. HAYDAY: I would draw attention to the terms of the Amendment. The first part of it calls attention to the question of the supply of oil fuel to the Royal Navy, but the latter parts state that, "it is desirable for strategic and economic reasons and to help in providing employment that energetic steps be taken to encourage the use of oil fuel from our own coal."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The real substance of the Amendment is the encouragement of the use of oil fuel from a specified source in the Royal Navy. That is the primary object of the Amendment. I agree that it may be necessary to give illustrations of a detailed character, but it appears to me that the primary is now becoming the secondary in this discussion.

Mr. HAYDAY: On the question of employment we say that instead of the Royal Navy utilising imported fuel it ought to produce, or assist in the production of, oil from our own coal. That is the economic side of this Amendment. I need not do more than put this point. I may be asked, what volume of oil could be produced, by the use of our own coal in this way. I think, by what is known
as the low-temperature carbonisation process, it is possible to produce from 16 gallons to 20 gallons of oil per ton of coal, and figures have been given to me which go to show that the treatment of one ton of coal by the hydrogenation process, would result in 120 gallons to 130 gallons of petrol. Thus one can see that it is within the bounds of reasonable possibility to produce, by the proper treatment of our own coal, a supply on a sufficiently large scale to meet the Navy's requirements. I re-echo what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment that the Navy is dependent on this oil supply, and that the country is dependent on the Navy. The country's shipping is of the first importance, and it is false economy to say that, because imported oil is at its present price, when it is a glut on the market, that is a reason against developing our own resources and providing the required volume of oil from our own raw material.
I cannot see the force of that argument. If, as we know, there are 250,000 miners unemployed; if, as we know, there are new schemes for low-temperature carbonisation plants at pit-heads, in order to give bulk supplies of gas and treat the residue; if, as we know, there is a trust or undertaking pursuing very successful developments in connection with hydrogenation and the production of oil from our own raw material by this means; if, as we know, the fine powder coal which has no market value at present would have a very great value in this respect—then, why should not the Government of the day itself, instead of subsidising private undertakings to continue this research, themselves undertake large-scale research? The ultimate purpose of the Government should be to utilise our own resources to the full for the Navy and for the country, and to secure us against the necessity for requiring any outside assistance in the provision of this essential material. I second this Amendment in the hope that the Admiralty will press forward with all possible measures for the utilisation of coal in the production of oil for the Navy.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I rise with great pleasure to support in almost every particular what has been said from the other side on this subject, and I con-
gratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) on their speeches. I shall try not to be too tediously technical in dealing with this subject, but to some extent technicalities are vital in the consideration of this matter. Since 1911 this question has been before the country, and at present we are within measurable distance of providing the necessary supplies of oil, both light and heavy, from our own coal. In fact, this evening we are having a very timely discussion on a vital national issue. Although the Admiralty Vote is in some respects a suitable one on which to raise the question, this is, more properly, a matter on which the Cabinet as a whole should make a decision, and I feel very strongly that we have allowed things to slide for years, in connection with this subject, without coming to a decision. To-day I put a question to the Secretary for Mines on the matter, and although it is the custom in this House to provide, I will not say evasive but rather jejune answers to questions, the reply, which was to the effect that the Government had the subject under constant review but at present had no specific proposal to report, struck me as a very vague and insufficient answer to a very important question. Therefore, I am glad that we have the opportunity of ventilating it more fully this evening.
We run the gravest risks in relying as we do on getting our oil supply for the Navy from oversea. If we have the slightest imagination, we must realise the difficulties which would arise if the oil supply from the United States which is now something like 75 per cent. of the world supply were cut off. That, in itself is a sufficient risk, but one has also to remember that the oil which comes from Iraq has to cross hundreds of miles of desert, and one can easily imagine how sabotage or injury of one kind or another could be effected on the pipe-lines which even now are a source of constant international friction. I realise to the full the tragedy, as I would term it, of the finances of this question and the difficulty at a time when the country is labouring under great financial stress of asking for more money. But I think we are justified in considering ways and
means of raising sufficient money, whereby the uneconomic aspect of this question can be met, and the effort to meet a great national issue can be supported by State financial assistance. I make this plea, and I am sure the Admiralty would agree with me in it, that any extra cost involved ought not to be allowed to fall on the Admiralty Vote. If oil is to be provided from our own coal, it would not be fair for reasons which I need not go into now that the cost should be allotted in that way.
Apropos of the answer given to me this afternoon, I was, as I have said, a little disappointed at its vagueness, because I know that a great scheme is on foot, that people with great ideas and plenty of money are practically ready to further this scheme and to do great things for it. I know that the capital is ready, and although it may be private enterprise, at any rate there are great prospects that it will have a great success. The technical situation is extremely hopeful and is becoming more and more hopeful as the years go on. There is the alleged myth that you cannot provide the necessary oil from British coal. I am not quite certain where that myth comes from, but I know of one or more instances, and they are of people whose one ambition it is to put the clock back. It is a genuine fact, technical and practical, that the necessary oil can be got from British coal, and in fact the hydrogenation system of dealing with coal, it is possible to get very nearly so per cent. of a ton of coal in the form of a tarlike oil, from which other and more suitable oils, light and heavy, can be produced; and the modified processes of that particular Bergius system are showing signs of great improvement already, with even better results.
There is the low temperature carbonisation which has been referred to, and I do not want to go into detail except to remind the House that low temperature carbonisation, when we get it, will provide not only a certain proportion of the oil which is under discussion, but it will also have the inestimable value of providing us with a considerable amount of a very perfect form of smokeless fuel, with the result that, if we can get it at an economic price, and get it used either by law or because people like it, we shall kill two birds with one stone, because we shall get oil for merchant ships and men
of war, and we shall also reduce the tragedy and the terrible danger of the smokiness of our atmosphere in this country. Therefore, we shall get several things if we can only utilise our own resources, which have been so wastefully handled for so many years.
I think it is perhaps wise and desirable to mention that our coal in this country is so good that it is not so easy to handle in producing oil as certain other kinds of coal. We have first class black coal here, and in Germany and elsewhere on the Continent they have another kind of coal, a brown coal, and that brown coal is very much better for the production of oil than is our own black coal. However, we can still deal with our own. It is rather a curious commentary that in America, which provides well over 70 per cent. of the world's product of oil, they came to the conclusion some years ago that it might run out and that they must develop the principle and the system of providing oil from their own coal. It is also of interest to realise the immense growth in the world production of oil. In fact, in the nine years from 1920 to 1929 the world output of oil has gone up from 95,000,000 tons to 207,000,000 tons, or 117 per cent., which only goes to show the way in which we are increasingly binding ourselves to the use of oil, without considering the magnificient gifts that nature has made to the country.
I would remind the House of the extraordinary growth in the aviation services of this country, private and otherwise, and that something like 10 per cent. of the total petrol spirit used is used in aeroplanes in this country. With regard to the subject of lubricants, lubricating oil is the most difficult to supply or provide by the treatment of this coal. To return to the ever increasing use of oil, there were in 1929 something like 33,000,000 tons of our mercantile marine using it, and that is something like a third of the merchant navy, and there are far more building for oil at the present time than for coal. Although this Amendment deals directly with oil for the Navy, we have to remember that the Navy has, among others, a great duty to perform, and that is the protection of the merchant fleet, which could not run unless it had oil on which to run. Therefore, the two things are very
closely interlocked. The Navy uses in the neighbourhood of 750,000 tons of oil in peace time, and of course a great deal more oil is used for the merchant service and many other purposes—something like 1,000,000 tons for general purposes outside the Navy—and the coal we are using now is something like 70,000,000 tons a year for mercantile purposes.
I want, as an officer who has had a good deal to do with oil-burning ships and coal-burning ships, to mention that I had the honour to command two ships during the War, one of which used 1,000 tons of coal a week and the other 300 or 400 tons of oil a week. In the one case it took 800 or 900 men 24 hours of the veriest slavery to get that coal into the ship, and in the other case it took five men out of our complement of 400 to get the whole of the oil into the ship in a few hours. I think that is a picture in words that will appeal to any who have handled, as I have for many weary hours, the navigator shovel on a man-of-war. Many of my hon. Friends opposite are desperately and keenly concerned with the production of coal and the employment of people to produce it, but I would ask them not to pin their faith on pulverised fuel or coal in any form for the Navy. The Navy can never go back from oil to coal in any form at all. We should reduce the distance that the ship could steam, taking an individual ship, by something like 50 per cent., which is serious enough. We should reduce the power that we now obtain by oil, if we went back to coal, by something like 50 per cent.
It has been pointed out that it takes double the number of men to work the coal into the furnaces in a man-of-war that it does to work the same furnaces with oil. With coal you have dirt, damage, and danger, and if any hon. Member was interested to call for a return of the injuries and deaths that occurred among the personnel of the Navy during the 10 years before the War, in the days of keen competition in rapid coaling, he would be astonished at the death and damage roll that fell upon the personnel of the Navy in consesquence of the use of coal. It was not for nothing that in a battleship during the War, over the entry port of the ship, there was placed a navigator
shovel, burnished and beautifully polished, that had written over it, "Lest we forget." It was, of course, an oil-burning ship.
The conclusions, roughly, in regard to this matter are as follow: We are thoroughly unsafe in this country in depending on external supplies of coal. The difficulty with the submarines has been mentioned, and that is a very serious danger. The storage, of which we have a good deal at present—one might say we have not got enough—is not by any manner of means anything more than a very moderate safeguard. We do not know how long the troubles will last. Let us hope that they will not come about, but if they do, and we have not sufficient storage and the factories, we shall be in a very serious position. We have no right to wait for the emergency before we erect our factories to deal with the problem. The question was raised very seriously in 1918, and the curious thing was that though we wanted the fuel desperately badly, or at least might have, the immediate answer was that we had not the men to build the factories or machinery to deal with them after they had been erected, because everybody was busy doing something else. Therefore the wrong time to do work of that kind is during an emergency. Now is the time to deal with it.
The cost of the insurance, as it would be, for the safety of the Fleet, and the protection of the country and our mercantile marine, would be well worth while for the State to accept. I say nothing about the joy we should engender in the hearts of the people who are out of work in the coalfields. That is one of the most important aspects. In the high temperature carbonisation you already destroy, by destructive distilling, coal amounting to something like 36,000,000 tons a year, and I see not the smallest reason why machinery should not be erected for the handling of millions of tons of coal for the purpose of producing this oil. There are many more things which could be said, but I am anxious to hear the views of trade union members who are concerned with the lives and work of the coal miners. Finally, I would say that the dependence of the Navy on foreign fuel is absolute and a very dangerous thing. I should like to see the same
energy exerted in this matter as was exerted by the men and women of the country during the War in the production of munitions. At the very most I am quite confident we have very little more than, if as much as, a year's reserve for the whole Navy in the way of oil. That is a small reserve if the supply is cut off the day that war breaks out.
I make an appeal to the Government, not only to the Civil Lord who has made a great study of this question but to the Government themselves, not to let things go on, but to publish the facts and let the public know where we stand in this extremely important matter. At the present time it is true to say that we really know very little about it. We shall know more about it at the end of the Debate, but not as much as we ought to know. I do not want to see another Royal Commission, but the public have a right to know more than they know now. I ask the Government, who, I have no doubt, realise that they have to a great extent failed in regard to the provision of employment, not to rely on "rotten parchment bonds" for the protection of this country in time of war. Treaties, agreements and pacts with foreign Powers will not help us. We must protect ourselves and produce our own oil from our own coal. I ask the Government to face up to this question, so that they may go down to history with one great lasting achievement, namely, that they have brought prosperity, happiness and health to the nation, and prosperity and happiness to what at present is almost a moribund industry, namely, the coal industry. Let them remember that the nation have a right to know the facts, and let them act in this matter at once.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I rise to support the Amendment, and to extend my thanks to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) for bringing it forward, and also to the last speaker for his kind references to the industry in which I am most interested. We are interested in the matter from two aspects. We realise that the use of oil by the Navy reduces the demand for coal by the Navy. If it is the policy of the Admiralty to increase the use of oil, then we ought to advocate the policy of getting oil from the coal of this
country; otherwise, it will mean that the coal industry will be very badly hit indeed. I noticed that the First Lord, when he spoke a year ago on the Estimates, made this statement:
It would be a great advantage from the Admiralty point of view if we could provide in this country a natural reserve of oil fuel, without having to build up at heavy capital cost fuel reserves purchased from overseas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1930; col. 1745, Vol. 236.]
The hon. and gallant Member's purpose in bringing forward this Amendment was to avoid the building up of these great reserves. As far back as 1924 a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) laid it down that the Government of the day should go into the question. They said:
Liquid fuel can be obtained from coal, and every million tons of coal carbonised by suitable methods will produce 15,000,000 gallons, or possibly more, liquid oil. The grades of oil produced would not necessarily correspond exactly to those now imported, but if it were possible to subject to those processes the bulk of the 147,000,000 tons of coal now consumed in the raw state, the greater part, at least, of our present requirements of oil could be produced from home sources instead of being imported from abroad.
We know that at the moment the consumption of coal by the Navy is 25 per cent. lower than it was two years ago. I tried to ascertain from the First Lord this afternoon what amount of coal had been used by the Navy in the last three years. He told us that in 1928 it was 247,000 tons; in 1929 it was 208,000 tons; and in 1930 it was 182,000 tons. That is a reduction of 25 per cent. in two years. If something is not done to check this, it will mean an increase in unemployment in the mining industry, and I am quite sure that every Member does think to-day that the number of unemployed, 300,000, in the industry is quite sufficient. I also asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell me the quantity of oil used by the British Navy, but his answer was that it would not be desirable in the national interests to furnish information as to the total quantities of oil fuel consumed. Last week the Minister of Mines did tell us that the amount of petrol imported into this country was very substantial, and increasing year by year. He told us that in 1928 the quantity imported was 735,000,000 gallons; in 1929,
810,000,000 gallons; and in 1930, 955,000,000 gallons. We in the industry feel that it has been proved by experiments that suitable oil can be extracted from the coal of this country for the use of the Navy.
We shall be told that it is doubtful whether it is an economic proposition. In judging whether it is an economic proposition, I hope that the Civil Lord, the Admiralty and the Government will not look at it entirely from the point of view of the cost of production. We have to consider that, if we extract oil from coal, it increases the demand for coal in this country, and, by increasing the demand, it provides increased employment, and thus takes a large proportion of people from the Employment Exchanges. I hope that the economic aspect will not be judged from too narrow a point of view. All we in the mining industry ask is that, since the using of oil decreases the demand for coal, since reducing the demand for coal creates unemployment, and since oil of a satisfactory nature can be produced from coal, is it not economic for the Government to take such steps as are necessary to increase the supply of oil from coal and lessen the supply of oil from abroad? We in the mining industry are pleased that this Amendment has been brought forward, and we expect the Admiralty to do all that they can to encourage the production of oil from coal in this country.

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. H. Hall): The hon. and gallant Member who introduced this Amendment referred to the fact that this was the thirteenth Naval Debate in which he has participated. The thirteenth Debate in which he has participated has brought him good luck, for the Government are quite prepared to accept his Amendment. We are very largely in agreement with what it contains. I know of no more fascinating and important subject than the question which has been debated this evening. We must all admit the importance of it, because the substitution of oil not only for coal fuel in the Navy, but for power production generally, strikes at the very heart of one of the greatest industries in this country. The substitution of oil for coal which has taken place so widely in so many different forms of machinery in recent years
has raised a problem of the first moment as regards both naval propulsion and the general problem of power production. References have been made to the growing increase in the use of oil and in the production of oil. No reference has been made to the almost stationary world output of coal. We can go so far as to say that the very large increase in the world's output of oil for power production is one of the main factors in the great depression which exists in the mining industry in this and other countries.
I was somewhat alarmed in going through the figures of the importation of oil into this country for last year. We have almost reached the figure of 2,000,000,000 gallons of oil of all kinds imported into this country; 75 per cent. of that oil was motor spirit and fuel oil, the total cost of which to this nation was no less than £42,000,000, an increase in two years of something like £8,000,000. The substitution of oil for fuel—one regrets saying this, but we must face facts—must be accepted as a positive tendency of to-day and I am afraid there can be no turning back. An eminent authority in the world of naval engineering has recently pointed out that the use of oil fuel is no new thing. Experiments with creosote were carried out as far back as 1867, while it is on record that a ship called "Gretsia," owned by the Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Company, was fitted to burn oil fuel in 1881. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) will know that in 1886 locomotives on the Great Eastern Railway were fitted to burn oil fuel, but, fortunately for the mining industry, the scheme was not carried out. The present form of mechanical atomisation dates from 1902, and the great step which was taken in 1912 has really changed the whole position, as far as the Navy is concerned, as a result of the report of the Fisher Committee. There has been no turning hack, and from that time not only the British Navy, but foreign navies, have largely become oil-burning in place of coal-burning.
To one who, like myself, comes from a coalfield where it is admitted the finest steam coal in the world is produced, and who represents a constituency where very
large supplies of coal were produced for the Navy before the change took place, and from which the very small proportion of coal which is used at the present time comes, this is not a very pleasing view. I am a coal man who believes in coal, but at the same time I have to face the situation that at the present time the British Navy is using only about one-tenth of the coal which it used in pre-War days. Whole collieries in my Division were occupied continuously at work in sending coal to the British Navy, and to a number of the large liners which plied between this and other countries. One of the outstanding features of his Debate is that none of the Members who have taken part in it has suggested for a moment that the Navy should go back to coal. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) said that the Navy, as far as he could see, could not go back to coal or even take pulverised fuel. That is the general opinion of most naval officers and engineers. Some naval officers argue that it is better for the Navy to go back to coal, but that opinion is not generally held.
Much as I regret saying this, I can see no possible prospect of the Navy going back to coal, the advantages of the use of oil fuel over coal being so patent. Some of them were given by my hon. and gallant Friend. He referred to the increased endurance. The increased endurance for a given weight of fuel is in the ratio of 16 to 10. Then there is the very large reduction in the weight of machinery and boilers. Then, again, while the indicated horse-power of the Fleet at the present time has greatly increased by comparison with 1914, at the same time a considerable reduction in the number of stoker ratings has taken place. In 1914, when the Navy was very largely coal fired, there were more than 39,000 stoker ratings, and the latest figures show that the number of stoker ratings is now 18,355. Everyone who examines those figures is bound to admit that from the point of view of economy of personnel oil has a considerable superiority over coal. Another advantage is to be found in the shorter time required to fuel a vessel. Coal can be taken aboard at the rate of 250 tons an hour with the whole ship's company engaged in the work, whereas
500 to 700 tons of oil can be taken aboard per hour with only about six men engaged. There is also the factor of the comfort of the personnel of the ship; this can be improved as the result of the greater space that is available.
In all classes of warships the British Navy is practically all oil burning, as is the case with foreign navies; and, in addition, something like 33 per cent. of the vessels of the mercantile marine are also oil burning. In the new construction for the mercantile marine oil-burning ships and motor ships represent something like 50 per cent. Whilst the superiority of oil over coal is seldom seriously disputed, we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that not only the Navy, but also the country, has been the loser by the change, because the source of our fuel supply is now no longer within our shores and we are absolutely dependent for fuel upon countries overseas. With the exception of creosote and shale oil, we produce little or no oil from natural sources in this country, and it is also true that less than 2 per cent. of the oil resources of the world are within the British Empire. Therefore, this is a matter of vital importance not only for the Navy but for this country and for the whole Empire. My hon. and gallant Friend asked that we should do all we can to encourage the production of shale oil. The Admiralty have from time to time done what they could to assist the shale oil industry of Scotland. In 1930–31 we inquired about possible purchase from them of some 20,000 tons of that oil, which is very suitable for a certain kind of engine used in the Navy. Instead of quoting a price for the supply of 20,000 tons of oil they offered us only 5,000 tons, and that at a price which could not be considered, and we had to seek the oil elsewhere and bring it in from another country.
Both the Admiralty and the Government are well aware of the dangers arising from, the fact that our sources of fuel supply are not in this country, and that our fuel must come to us over thousands of miles of sea routes. Most of our difficulties could be solved if we could use our own coal to produce oil, but I am afraid that if I were to enter fully into that question I should suffer the fate of one of my hon. Friends who was asked
by the Deputy-Speaker not to deal with the production of oil, as it did not come strictly within the terms of the Resolution. All I can say is that the Fuel Research Department are devoting, and have devoted, a good deal of energy and a good deal of money to this question, and close touch is being maintained with the Mines Department and the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research with a view to a mutual interchange of information. Production, however, does not fall to the duty of the Admiralty. That is a large question of Government policy, and the appropriate Department will have to be approached for a decision upon it. Questions were put to my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines only yesterday, and in reply he said that he was giving careful consideration to whether anything further could usefully be done to expedite the development of these processes. We must take it, therefore, that the Government are still considering the position.
The scientific treatment of coal is proceeding along four lines. First, there is the conversion of coal into pulverised fuel; secondly, there is high-temperature carbonisation, which gives a certain amount of creosote oils; then there is hydrogenation, to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred at considerable length; and, fourthly, there is the process, which I think I am correct in saying is by far the most talked of in this country, of low-temperature carbonisation. I will deal with each process briefly. With regard to pulverised fuel, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes came down quite definitely on one side when he said that he could see no prospect of the Fleet reverting to coal or to pulverised coal as a substitute for oil fuel. I must admit that the use of pulverised fuel for naval purposes is not regarded as very promising at the present time. The progress which was made sonic four years ago in the mercantile marine has not been generally sustained.
There are difficulties as regards the disposal of ash. In the mercantile marine there is a tendency to introduce mechanical stokers rather than to use pulverised fuel. As regard both the mercantile marine and shore plant development, work is in progress both in private concerns and in the Fuel Research Department. I think there are some 23
ships in the world using pulverised fuel with varying success. Two British ships adopted this new method last year, although it is only fair to say that at the same time two British ships reverted to hand-firing because of the difficulties which were experienced with pulverised fuel.
One of the difficulties of the use of pulverised fuel is that you cannot store it conveniently owing to the danger of combustion. While it is all right for shore establishments where no consideration is needed for weight and space, it is quite different in the case of a battleship, where these considerations are very important where your store of coal takes up more room than oil. Besides this, you must have a pulverising plant, which adds considerably to the space needed, which is such a vital question in a man-of-war.
The second method is high-temperature carbonisation, the by-product of which for our purposes is creosote. It is true to say that during 1930 in this country no less than 32,000 tons of creosote were produced, and it is agreed that in an emergency that amount could be increased to 500,000 tons. We purchased during the War nearly 300,000 tons of creosote, and since the War we have purchased 209,000 tons, but that does not say that creosote is best for the requirements of the Navy. Creosote contains a considerable proportion of naphthalene which under low temperature conditions is liable to be deposited. When we use creosote, then we have to mix it with petroleum oils owing to the defects which I have just described. There is also a certain amount of anthracene contained in the creosote, and that is injurious to the health of the people who use it.
Reference has been made to the hydrogenation process for the treatment of coal in America.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When I referred to hydrogenation in the United States of America I was meaning particularly the treatment of crude natural oil rather than coal. Here the Americans have great experience, and are technically more experienced than we are as yet.

Mr. HALL: That process is all right if you want to produce petrol, but I
can assure hon. Members that if they knew the experience of the Admiralty in this matter they would not stress so much the question of the Admiralty adopting this process for the purpose of producing the small quantity of petrol used by the Admiralty.
10.0 p.m.
The Admiralty is doing all it can with regard to the testing of oils whether they are produced by the hydrogenation process or by the low temperature carbonisation process. We have received supplies from one of the best known companies who deal with hydrogenation in this country, and tests have been carried out in internal combustion engines at the Admiralty Engineering Laboratory, with results so satisfactory that we have asked the same company to send 1,000 gallons of this oil for further trials, and the Admiralty are doing all they can to give this oil a thorough test.
With regard to low temperature carbonisation, the treatment of coal by this process has been carried out in many places at home and abroad. I am not going to deal with the technical difficulties which arise as a result of the treatment in large quantities by the process of low temperature carbonisation, but in this process it must be remembered that we have not only a by-product of oil, but also a number of gases and other by-products, which are in competition with other products produced in this country. Before you can produce very large quantities of oils by a process of low temperature carbonisation, you have to produce and find a market for large quantities of low temperature coke and other by-products. During the last 18 months or two years the Admiralty has done quite good work with regard to the question of the production of oil from this process of low temperature carbonisation. We have made inquiries from any and every undertaking that looked like supplying our requirements with regard to samples of oil for tests in the laboratory, and samples which can be burned at the test station at Hasler and also on board ship.
Twelve of these samples were tested, and it is true to say that eight were satisfactory. We have asked that the firms making these samples should send us along further quantities of 20 tons of oil, so that we can follow
up our tests at the laboratory and on board ship. We have received five of these samples, and all were satisfactory but one. We have placed orders for one more lot, and we are negotiating for another lot of 20 tons to be sent along. We have burned these oils unmixed with any other oil, and we have tried them blended with various other oils, imported from all parts of the world. We have blended them in the proportion of two to one, one to one, and one to two, and we are satisfied that we could burn any quantity of this oil similar to the samples when the supply is available. Of course, the amount depends upon the firm's success in obtaining a market for the by-products of low temperature carbonisation, particularly smokeless fuel, which have already been referred to, because the market for the other products controls the price at which the oil can be sold.
Much has been said with regard to the question of an economic price, and I should be the last person to stand upon this question of economic prices in view of what the possibility of a supply of oil from coal would mean to the men employed in the mining industry; but when the price of oil obtained by a process of this kind is two, three and four times the price which is being paid for oil at the present moment, it is obvious that some thought must be given to the question of an economic price. Already we have had submitted to us a considerable bulk purchase at a price not vastly in excess of that which we are paying at the present time, and the Admiralty is considering the question of purchasing this low temperature carbonisation oil.
We have now overcome many of our initial difficulties. I well remember the present Leader of the Opposition, speaking on this question of low temperature carbonisation in 1925, saying at this Box:
The time has not come yet when a commercial process has been successfully devised. It will come. It may come soon; it may be in a few years; but it is as certain as that we are standing and sitting in this House this afternoon that what has proved successful in the laboratory will be proved successful commercially; and, when that day comes, although what is discovered in the laboratories must be the common property of the science of the whole world, yet it will give to this country probably the
greatest push forward and development that it has had since the discovery of steam.
We believe in that, and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Engineer-in-Chief of the Navy and his staff have done all that they could during the last 18 months or two years in the investigation of this matter. While there is much that is doubtful with regard to this development—no one can foretell the trend of world prices, and it may be that an excessive overproduction of oil abroad may prove a heavy handicap to firms engaged in production at home—it can be said with confidence that the chemical difficulty of producing from coal a fuel oil fit for use in His Majesty's ships is a thing of the past, and I hope that in the very near future it will be possible to obtain supplies of oil from our coal at a price which will give a tremendous fillip to the coal industry of this country. We must remember, too, that the whole industrial life of this nation depends upon supplies of these power-producing commodities. So far as the Admiralty is concerned, we are prepared at all times to test any oils produced by any process whatsoever, including even lubricating oils, to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred. If there is a firm who think that they have a suitable kind of oil, we are prepared to test it, both in the laboratory and in trial runs, and to negotiate in regard to its purchase, provided always that such oil can be produced at an economic price.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for his reply. I recognise that this question is outside the purview of the Admiralty, and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

PERSONNEL.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That 93,650 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines he employed for the Sea Service, together with 550 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want now to deal with quite a different subject, namely, the question of personnel, and particularly the question of discipline. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) raised the question of the "Lucia." I do not want to follow up that question, except to say that I am absolutely in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member with regard to the captain of the submarine depot ship. Captain Halifax, whom I had the honour of knowing in my naval days, was a most gallant submarine officer in the War, and did particularly good service in the Heligoland Bight under extremely hazardous conditions. He was actually away when this regrettable incident happened, and he has been made the victim of a system which, at bottom, has certain defects. I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not having given him notice that I was going to raise this question, but I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Captain W. G. Hall) has told him we would raise this question. I entirely agree with what he said about the general discipline of the personnel of the Navy. The standard is very high, and we have a very fine type of men in the Service now. An hereditarily manly type of man is coming in now, especially from the West country, and the morale of the Navy is very high indeed. Nevertheless, a continual change is going on in the mentality of the men of the Fleet. They are better educated now, they have a different outlook on life, and the whole method of discipline has gradually evolved from the brutal and illiterate days of the flogging Navy, when the men were ruled by leaders like Nelson and Cochrane by the power of personality and magnetism, but they were ruled also by others by the fear of the lash and the gallows.
We have passed from that to the modern, well educated personnel of the Fleet, who can listen to reason, who know what the interests of the community are, and who can be relied upon to play the game if they are given a chance to do so. There have been, however, a number of incidents in the Fleet, going back a good many years. Before the War, we had one or two unfortunate outbreaks—gun-sights were thrown overboard, and so on. That was a sort of demonstration
made by men who had a grievance and wished to draw attention to it, and had no other way of doing so. There were inquiries, and a great deal of comment in the Press and in Parliament. Then came the War, when, of course, the men reacted splendidly, and there was no case of anything like mutiny during the whole period of the campaign, under conditions of very great difficulty. Then we came back to times of peace, and there have been two or three cases—isolated cases which, nevertheless, show that there is a certain defect in the discipline code. I am speaking now as an officer who served at sea for 17 years, during all of which, except a hectic six months at the Admiralty, I was in charge of men, and I think I know something about discipline. The trouble in the Navy is that there is an old hereditary idea, which has come down to generation after generation of seamen, that it never pays to make complaints. It does not work, and it is unhealthy. When there is a general grievance, the machinery under which seamen can make complaints is not what it should be. I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he will look again into this question? The Articles of War lay the matter down very clearly, and I believe we are still ruled in the Fleet by the old wording that came down from the remodelled code of discipline introduced after the great mutinies at Spithead and the Nore. Those mutinies were partly the result of unmade complaints. The men had complaints, and they had no machinery to prefer them. The following words were inserted and are still read out once a quarter on the quarter-deck of every ship:
Every person subject to this Act who shall have any cause of complaint, either of the unwholesomeness of the victuals or on any other just ground, shall quietly make the same known to his superior, or captain, or commander-in-chief, and the said superior, captain, or commander-in-chief shall, as far as he is able, cause the same to be investigated and remedied, and no person subject to this Act under any pretence whatever shall attempt to make any disturbance under pains and penalties.
That is the old wording, but, under the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions issued from time to time by the Board of Admiralty, there is a punishment for men who prefer what are called frivolous complaints.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. There is no such punishment now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am coming to that point. I have in my hand the alterations. I am referring to the original punishment, and I am going to show how it has not been altered in practice. The Parliamentary Secretary must give me a little time to develop a matter which affects the whole of the men in the Navy. There was a punishment for what were known as frivolous complaints, and, in the hands of the minority of officers who were harsh in their handling of the men, this could be used as a very serious deterrent to the men putting forward any complaints at all. It is not so much the officers in a matter of this kind. It is the ship's petty officers. Here and there are men temperamentally not quite suitable for their posts. Then we had one of these incidents, the "Royal Oak" case, which caused much concern. The regulations were altered. That trouble took place in the spring of 1928 and new regulations were promised by the then First Lord, Lord Bridgeman, and they have been published, but they are still not satisfactory. I am now quoting the actual regulations issued in March, 1929. My right hon. Friend was not responsible for them, but he has an opportunity of amending them. First of all, in regard to redressing wrongs:
If any officer, petty officer, non-commissioned officer, or man thinks that he has suffered any personal oppression, injustice, or other ill-treatment, or that he has been treated unjustly in any way may after due consideration make a complaint in accordance with the following rules.
That is the wording. Notice that the words there are "any personal oppression." In the "Lucia" court-martial, the master-at-arms was asked if he knew that there was something wrong. He said he did, but he said he suffered no personal injury. He was not personally affected and, therefore, he did not complain. There you have an actual case where the present regulations limit the right of men to make complaints. I consider that in this matter we should adopt the Army system. I am going to compare the difference between the Navy Regulations and those in the Army Act, Section 42, where it is stated:
Complaints may be made respecting any matter.
Notice it says "any matter." Therefore if a master-at-arms, say the master of the "Lucia," knows that things are wrong on the lower deck because the men object to working unnecessarily on Sunday or something like that, he could under the Regulations of the Army Act, go to the first lieutenant and say, "Sir, the men are very dissatisfied, and will you look into it?" Under the Navy Regulations he is not personally affected. The master-at-arms does not paint the ship, and in strict theory is prevented from going to the first lieutenant in the way I have described. Let me say that petty officers do go to the chief officer when things are wrong. That is what happens in 99 cases out of 100, but we have to legislate for the hundredth case, the hundredth case of the "Lucia." We know that a man who was not responsible for the trouble is now broken because of this defect in the Navy Regulations. We may have other cases of this sort. There ought to be no limit on the right of making complaints. A footnote to the Army Act says:
A complaint must be made by the individual himself.
That is perfectly right. It then goes on to say:
A soldier cannot in any way be punished for making a complaint under this Section, whether it be frivolous or not, and he ought not for making a complaint be treated in any way with harshness or suspicion.
There is, of course, a saving Clause in the Army Act which is all we need in the Navy Regulations. These are the only words needed to guard against vexatious or spiteful complaints. It is an offence in the Army if an officer or soldier in making complaints where he thinks himself wronged,
knowingly makes any false statement affecting the character of an officer or soldier.
That is really the law of libel brought into the Army Regulations. We want some such regulations as that in the Navy Regulations and nothing else is required.
Then there are other limitations, for example, the case of the officers. Under the Regulations made by Lord Bridgeman, complaints by an officer serving in one of His Majesty's ships is to be made
to the captain, in accordance with the Service custom, whereby a complainant is to snake a request orally to see the captain. Why should he not put his complaint in writing? Supposing the officer has a grievance which he feels ought to be remedied. He may be a nervous man, and his captain a man of violent temper, in which case it may be vital for him to put his complaint in writing. Why limit him? Then there is another difficulty, and now I am coming to the case of the seaman who falls in to see his divisional officer and prefers a complaint through him to the commander. Under the Regulations, the complaint is investigated, and for his assistance the captain details the divisional officer of the man or some other officer. Why should not the man have the right to choose who shall help him in preferring his complaint? Why is he limited in that way?
I come to the question of joint complaints. Two or more complaints are not allowed. Each individual must make his own complaint and must not be associated with others. I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why these words have been put in? There are several hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite who served with the Fleet, and they know it used to be quite a regular and proper thing for the 12 or 14 men of a whole mess to fall in to complain, for example, that the cooking was bad. It was quite right that they should. Under these words they cannot do that. Only one person may make a complaint. Two or more persons are not allowed to fall in, apparently, according to these words, in an orderly manner to make their complaint. I submit that although the wording of these Regulations makes little difference in 99 cases out of 100, in the hundredth case, where you get a man whose officer is temperamentally difficult, these Regulations give the officer immense power over any man who ventures to make a complaint. There are other Regulations which all tend to hamper and hedge round the human right of the man in the Service to be able to bring effective pressure to bear when he suffers an injustice, or what he thinks is an injustice. The wider you can make the channel through which perfectly legitimate complaints can be made by men suffering a grievance, the better for all
concerned. We do not want to encourage in the Navy the man who has always got a grievance, or the sea lawyer, but there have been two or three cases recently—there was the case in the Mediterranean about 18 months ago at Nice, the "Royal Oak" case, the "Lucia" case, and one or two others which I have heard of but have not reached the public, which give cause for anxiety.
Naval discipline to-day still has about it much of the century-old traditions of the press-gang. At any rate, the spirit still remains. The Navy lives on tradition, and old customs and old ways are cherished. The old idea has come down that there is no really effective or easy remedy for the man who suffers from his immediate superior an alleged injustice. That needs to be put right. The words put into the new Regulations by the Conservative First Lord of the Admiralty are, I submit, too hampering and are not the equal in liberality towards the men as the Army rules. I beg my right hon. Friend to look into this matter sympathetically and see if some alteration cannot be made for the greater advantage of the men.

Commander SOUTHBY: I should like to make a few observations with regard to personnel. The Committee will be only too willing to congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is able to effect economy without affecting the efficiency of the service or the efficiency of the personnel. The explanatory statement of the Estimate was very interesting reading, and I think that he and the whole Service over which he presides and of which he is the titular head are to be congratulated on that statement. There are, however, one or two points in the statement to which I should like to draw attention. The discussion of these Estimates is really based upon the question whether sufficient provision is being made for the adequate naval strength upon which the Empire and this country depend. It would not be in order for me on this Vote to discuss the providing of the material, but it is important to bear in mind that the provision of the material is dependent upon the provision of adequate personnel to work the material. I do not think that any impartial student of naval affairs at the present time can deny that up to, at and since the Naval Conference of London,
the British Navy has been bled white and cut to the bone, and that no other reductions, either in material or personnel, are possible, if an adequate standard of sea power, such as is essential and vital for this country and the Empire, is to be maintained. The paragraph in the explanatory statement at the end of Page 4 shows that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord envisages the possibility as the result of the forthcoming Disarmament Conference of further reductions in regard to the cessation of the building programmes, which means, in effect, that there must, be still further reductions in the number of officers and men serving in the Fleet.
That is a position which I believe the people of this country and the Empire in general will view with considerable misgiving. The Committee should take careful note of the statement on page 4, because we were led to believe, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) that the Naval Treaty was going to give us a bare minimum; a minimum on which it was possible for us to exist if adequate strength was to be maintained, and that that minimum applies not only to material but to personnel. If it is now going to be possible for the personnel of the Navy to be still further whittled down, as a result of the Disarmament Conference which is to take place in a few months time, then I contend that the situation is a very serious one. Indeed, we have gone below what is possible if we are adequately to man the ships of the fleet.
What is the position? The Estimates of March, 1930, indicated a reduction of the personnel of the Navy to 94,000 by 1st April, 1931, and I call the attention of the Committee to the fact, that that is the lowest figure since 1896. Vote A for 1931 shows that it is contemplated that the reduction by the 1st April will be to 93,650, a decrease of 350. A further fall is indicated in the explanatory statement, which shows that by the 31st March, 1932, the figure is expected to be 91,840. Indeed, in the explanatory statement the First Lord positively gloats over this reduction. The whole statement seems to me to be on the part of the First Lord a paean of delight that he has been able to achieve a reduction of 10,000 officers and men in the Service in
four years. I wonder whether he has had any complaints as regards the question of manning in the Navy at the present time, whether it is possible to get the reliefs which are required for foreign stations without considerable difficulty; whether there have been complaints of officers and men who have returned from foreign service and who expected to be given a reasonable time in their homes in this country, but who have found that owing to the shortage in officers and men they have almost immediately to turn round and go on foreign service again. Inadequate manning of the Navy is no new thing.
I can remember a period before the War when, owing to the laxity of previous Governments in providing personnel for the Service—the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will bear me out in this—officers who should have been able to go on leave at Christmas time when the ships were in dockyard hands, were able to get only a week or 10 days leave and were then immediately reappointed to other ships in the squadron because the shortage of officers was so great that when one ship was in the dockyard most of the watchkeeping officers serving in that ship were needed for other ships in the squadron. If you are going to go on whittling down the personnel you may well get into that position again. If personnel is short it means that the training of the men is bad, because you cannot get sufficient men away from the Fleet at sea in order to send them ashore for the training necessary to fit them for specialised rating, to their own advantage and to the advantage of the country. If it was a fact that the reduction in personnel of all other countries was commeunsurate with that of this country nobody in this House would have much cause for complaint. But what are the facts? In 1930 the United States figures for personnel were 114,500, and the Secretary of the United States Navy in making his report in December, 1930, used these words, to which I draw the special attention of the Committee:
It will be necessary to build up the enlisted force as the Fleet approaches Treaty Navy strength in cruisers and carriers unless further limitation is arranged by Treaty.
That envisages the fact that the United States Navy contemplates, not a reduction, but a further increase. In 1914 the British Navy consisted of 146,047 officers and men; the United States Navy on the same date consisted of 67,258 officers and men. To-day the figures are really alarming. Our Navy has been reduced by 45,207 officers and men, and the United States Navy has been increased by as many as 47,242 officers and men. That is up to 1930. It is well that the Committee should realise these figures. Yet, according to his statement, the Secretary to the United States Navy envisages a further increase in the near future. As the First Lord has pointed out, we have scrapped the Third Battleship Squadron, which was our training squadron, in which boys were sent to sea in order to fit them for service with the Fleet later. While we have scrapped that training squadron under the Treaty, the United States have taken particular pains to set in motion plans for the construction of a new training squadron. They have scrapped some of their drill ship stationaires and with the money thus found they are setting on foot a new training squadron. I maintain that every time we make a reduction, on the other side of the Atlantic an increase is made.
If you take the figures of the British Navy and of the United States Navy, you find a further discrepancy which cannot be too pointedly put. The United States figures do not include 12,000 officers and men now serving in the United States Revenue service. They are skilled men-of-warsmen. They are serving in ships akin to our destroyers, in better vessels than anything we possess, type for type, and in all respects are just as efficient as men serving in the Fleet. Yet in all questions of personnel these 12,000 officers and men have been left out. It may be possible to achieve parity in material. Personally, I think the phrase "parity in material" is a will-o'-the-wisp, and there is no one who knows that better than the First Lord after his 18 months at the Admiralty. You never will get parity in material because you have not the same conditions. You cannot get down to a comparable basis. But if you are to strive for parity in material, it is much more important to strive for parity
in personnel—the men who work the machine. If we are to have parity with the United States in personnel, in the same way as we are trying to have parity in material, instead of still further reducing the numbers of officers and men in the Fleet, we should have to increase the personnel by over 23,000 officers and men.
It is very easy in this country, with its enormous and unlimited resources in shipbuilding, to increase material, but if you once get behind in the race—it takes seven years to make an efficient seaman—if you once allow the numbers of your men in the Fleet to drop below the safe number, then if emergency should arise, it would be utterly impossible to improvise these men at a moment's notice. You may improvise the ships, but you cannot improvise the men to man them. If I understood him aright, the First Lord, in his opening speech, mentioned that the civil staff at the Admiralty was to be reduced by 30, and at the same time I think he indicated that, as regards officers, there was to be a reduction in the rank of lieutenant-commander of 150. Thus, at a time when economy is so necessary, it is only found possible to make a reduction of 30 in the civil staff, but when it comes to reducing the number of officers in the Fleet, nobody appears to mind in the least a reduction of 150. I think few Members of this Committee realise what it means to officers of the Fleet when so many of them are axed at a time when their private commitments are greatest and when their children are going to school. People who have been able to live in a small and quiet way in a dockyard town and to maintain some standard of comfort and happiness, find, when the axe falls, that they are left with an amount of retired pay which is often totally inadequate to support them and their families.
When the Admirals who negotiated and helped with these treaties of reduction come to the end of their time, I wonder if, in the glory and honour which they have achieved, they will remember how many fine junior officers, with good war service will, as a result of these reductions, end their days struggling to educate their families perhaps as the owners of small chicken farms or as com-
mercial travellers. I think the Committee ought to realise the effect of axing 150 men who joined the Service on the understanding that if they worked and behaved themselves they had a reasonable chance of advancement. Now by the exigencies of the Service and on the ground of the necessity for economy you have taken away from these men the jobs which they contracted to carry out and you have condemned them for the rest of their lives not only to penury but to certain poverty.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I must protest against the spirit of the hon. and gallant Member's remarks. After all jobs cannot be found for all these officers and there is a surplus in that particular class, and what we have done is to try to make better conditions for them, and to give them terms of retirement which will enable them better to support their positions.

Commander SOUTHBY: I welcome any indication that the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to make better the lot of these officers who deserve nothing but good from the country. May I quote what the First Lord said at Newcastle-on-Tyne not Jong ago:
You find a steady decline in our naval expenditure and a steady rise in almost every other country's expenditure and you begin to ask yourself whether it is a sane policy.
A very considerable part of that expenditure is on personnel and if we look at the figures, we find that there has been a rise in personnel in practically every country except this country. No country has made the sacrifices in material and personnel which have been made by this country. The Committee is, I think, agreed that our Navy is a world-wide police force. In 1929, we find that our shore-going police numbered 59,914, and cost £22,000,000 and in the same year the number of officers and men in the Navy was 99,800 and they only cost just over £60,000,000. That is pretty cheap for an international police force of that character.
I would make an appeal to the First Lord to consider further the question of marriage allowances for naval officers. I know that the matter has been debated time after time, and I have no desire to go into the details, but surely
there can be no reason why the officers of the Navy should be in a position inferior not only to the officers of the Army and Air Force, but inferior to the men over whom they are set in command. It is a position which is resented, not only by the officers of the Navy, but by the men on the lower deck, who feel it unjust that they should have a marriage allowance which is denied to the officers who look after them. I would ask the First Lord if he will not give his sympathetic consideration to the question. It is not a great deal to ask. The sum of money involved is not very great, and if he will go into the matter, as I am sure he has gone into it during his time at the Admiralty, he will find that it is a genuine cause of grievance and a genuine injustice which has persisted far too long.
This point is worth noticing. A Service that has been cut to the bone by economies in personnel or in material, denied money for improvement, whose officers are always defeated by politicians in their suggestions, to the detriment of Service efficiency, is bound to suffer heavily in morale. It stands in this particular danger, that the easy going, laisser faire type of officer, who asks for nothing will be the one who will come to the top, because the temptation will always be to play for safety, and the officer who asks for nothing for the Service is always bound to be popular with the politicians. In a Service bound together by such close ties as those that bind officers and men of the Royal Navy, anything approaching disheartenment or laisser faire amongst the officers is bound to be reflected right down amongst the men on the lower deck, and thereby the happiness, efficiency, and morale of the whole Service is bound to suffer. I suggest that it is the plain duty of this Committee to preserve the British Empire from such a catastrophe.

Captain W. G. HALL: The first point that I would like to raise is one which was raised by myself and other hon. Members last year, and it refers to the position of a very gallant and very useful section of the Royal Navy, the engine room artificers. Everyone will agree, I think, that the men in the Navy have, during the past 50, 60 or 100 years,
steadily increased in status, in comfort, and, at any rate until lately, in pay, but the engine room artificer has, since 1925, been definitely degraded so far as his status is concerned. From 1868 onwards until 1925 the engine room artificer was graded as a chief petty officer, and it was in 1925, under the late Conservative Government, that a change for the worse was made, and he now enters as a petty officer simply. It may seem to many hon. Members that there is very little in that, but I assure the Committee that to the engine room artificer it has meant a very great deal. We must remember that he comes into the Service at no cost to the nation; he is a trained mechanic before entering the service of the State, and he does not enter the Navy as a mere stripling, with no knowledge whatever; and the least, it seems to me, that the Admiralty can do is to rate him as a chief petty officer, as his forbears, and some of them now in the Navy, were rated for a period of over 60 years down to 1925.
There is another phase of this question to which I should like to call my right hon. Friend's attention. It is obvious that, owing to the change in status, you are not getting the same type of man entering as engine room artificer as you did prior to 1925. In answer to a question which I put to the First Lord a short while ago, I was told that out of about 800 recruits who applied for entry as engine room artificers between August and November, no less than 641 were rejected; a further 113 themselves withdrew when they discovered the conditions under which they would have to live, and only 46 were entered. If one discusses things, as one cannot help discussing when one sits for a naval town, with members of the Navy who are engine room artificers, one finds that they say universally that the type of man now coming in as engine room artificers is not by any means the type that previously entered. In the old days men who passed the educational and practical tests were required to get about 60 per cent. marks before they could be passed in. So different is the type now that the Admiralty have had to reduce the percentage of marks allowed for entry to 30 per cent. Moreover, men come in
now with certain physical disabilities which previously would have kept them out. Therefore, I suggest that the First Lord should go into this matter afresh and see if it is not possible to give back to this very deserving body of men the status that they have enjoyed over so many years, and which is their rightful due. It will cost the nation nothing, and it will, I submit, bring back the same type of man who previously applied for entry.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) gave at great length reasons why the First Lord should inquire afresh into discipline in the Navy. He quoted extracts from the new regulations which were issued in 1929 which showed, it seemed to me, that they do differ in material ways from the old regulations which were previously in force. I do not wish to labour the point so late in the evening, but in my view there is cause for inquiry into this matter. The cases of the "Lucia," the "Royal Oak," the recent case on board the "Revenge," and other incidents on board other ships, make some of us realise that all, perhaps, is not well in this direction. I have in my hand a cutting giving a report of the case of Leading Seaman Carter, who was discharged from the Navy, losing a pension of 30s. a week, for fomenting discontent on board His Majesty's Ship "Lucia." I know nothing about the man, and it may be he deserved all that came, to him, but we are told in the newspaper report, which is all I have to go by, that he had over many years had a very good character. All we do know is that the inquiry into his conduct was apparently carried on behind closed doors, and it was a secret inquiry as far as the public is concerned. He was tried by officers whose reports are treated as confidential, and it does seem to me and to other hon. Members on this side that grave miscarriages of justice can take place. Even if injustice is not occasionally done, at any rate there is a feeling on the part of the men that it is impossible for them to maintain their point of view as they would like to do and as they would if they were in the Army where things come into open court or before a court-martial which is carried on in a proper manner. Therefore, I would ask my right hon.
Friend, if representations are made to him following this Debate, to go into this matter afresh and see whether a manual cannot be issued in the same way that one is issued to officers in the Army for use when cases of discipline come forward; and whether in addition, he will not inquire afresh into the regulations issued in 1929, which in material ways bear hardly on men who happen to come up against their officers in certain directions.

Viscountess ASTOR: I want to add to the plea which has been made for the marriage allowances for officers. I asked a question in January, and was told that the Government were considering it. I hope that the Government have now come to a decision. They have made such enormous reductions in the Navy that I feel that they are perfectly able to grant the small sum involved, which is only £350,000, in order to remedy an injustice to the officers. This is the twelfth year in which I have pleaded for the officers and their wives. I am not asking for anything unusual, but only for what the officers of the Air Force and Army have. I am certain that the First Lord feels that he ought to grant it. If he could see the appalling conditions in which the wives of officers have to live, I feel certain that he would make a passionate plea for them. We who represent ports see things which, if hon. Members on the other side saw them, would lead them to give us in the House what is called "sob-stuff." These officers have no union and no body to speak for them, and that is why this House seems so ungallant in this matter. We ought to be the people to stick up for the services which cannot help themselves. It is no good telling me what other Governments have done, for they have behaved very shabbily. At one time provision for the allowance was even on the Estimates.
11.0 p.m.
I could give instances of naval officers who suffer hardship. They cannot send their children to day schools, and have to send them to boarding schools. They often have to keep two homes going, while the Army officer generally has only one. Every argument that could be made has been made in the House on behalf of these officers, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give us real hope. The right hon. Gentleman has had
to do many things that he never thought he would have to do; why should he not do just one thing more? Sometimes I think that hon. Members are a little hard on the First Lord. When we think how difficult things are for a Socialist First Lord of the Admiralty, we ought to be very grateful to him. He has made a gallant speech to-night. He has referred to the Navy as the Imperial Navy; and he has referred to the police work, the welfare work and the rescue work of the Navy. He is perfectly right, as we know who have always stood up for the Navy—not because we thought of it as a fighting force but because it is a force for peace. Later we shall hear hon. Members speaking as though the Navy were a great menace to peace—[An HON. MEMBER: "An incubus!"]. They had better thank God for the incubus. They would not be so well fed and fat as they are without it.
I realise how difficult things have been for a Socialist First Lord, but at least he has this advantage, that there is an Opposition ready to help him. And he needs it. When a Socialist Minister uses his head instead of his heart the help of the Opposition is needed to keep him in power. He knows perfectly well that outside the House his supporters fight against the Navy. We have never known a Labour man fight for the Navy. I have fought a good many elections, and have always had to fight for the Navy against Labour men. I am grateful to the First Lord, because he has made a very gallant fight, but it is a little disappointing to see that this country is not to do all that it might do under the arrangements made at Conferences. I am all for Conferences, but it is disappointing that we do not keep the Navy right up to scratch so far as we are allowed to do so under these schemes of progressive Disarmament. I do not know whether the First Lord has got an eye on the next Conference, but even there the people will not think the less of us if we show that we intend to do all that we are permitted to do.
Again I congratulate the First Lord on his work. He achieved a great thing in bringing the French and Italians together. He is almost a wizard. Now I hope that he will do one thing more, and that is adopt a new attitude towards this
question of marriage allowances for officers. He saved so much on the Navy this year that I think he has a chance of whole-hearted support even from some of the hon. Members on his own side, and certainly he will have the support of those of us on this side of the House. In regard to the dockyards, I am glad that he has stabilised work, but, all the same, his party have not done all that they said they would do when they were out of office. We were given the hope—at least I was not, because I never thought they would keep their promises—that they had a national programme for employing the dockyards on the building of everything from tin whistles to ploughs. The plan was already to be set in operation. I am very glad that it has not had to be put into effect, but if there are to be any further reductions I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind some of the promises that were made by his party, because I represent a dockyard constituency where the whole life of the people is dependent on the Navy. Therefore, if there is any further diminution of naval construction work, I hope some of those plans will be put into operation and not kept pigeon-holed.
In spite of all the disarmament talk, I cannot help feeling grateful, because I know what a fight the First Lord of the Admiralty must have had, and I am glad that he has won. It will be a bad day for England when we have a Socialist First Lord of the Admiralty, who, when he gets into power, attempts to keep some of the promises made when his party was in opposition. I know to-night we are going to be treated to the most bloodthirsty speeches. Hon. Members are going to say that the way to keep peace is to disarm. Well, I wish it was the way to get peace, but I think if there were more Christians—[Interruption.] We are going to hear people talk, peace, peace, but there is no peace within. We, as a nation, cannot legislate as though we were Christians. There is nothing in the world more dangerous to this country than to hear these glib Internationals talking about the danger to the world of armaments and war. I believe one lady Member in her maiden speech spoke as though we on this side of the House stood for war and did not want peace.
We are very grateful for the work which the First Lord of the Admiralty has done for the Navy, for at least he has tried to carry out the traditions set by hon. Members who sit on this side of the House.

Mr. ARNOTT: The other day the Noble Lady deprecated sending the sons of officers to elementary schools—

Viscountess ASTOR rose—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady must not interrupt unless the hon. Member gives way.

Viscountess ASTOR: I did not say that. The hon. Member misunderstood me. I said that the children of officers had to be sent to boarding schools.

Mr. ARNOTT: I do not intend to enter into the question of what should be done with the Navy, or whether we should abolish it or not, but I want to emphasise what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Captain W. G. Hall) with regard to a body of men who, if the Navy is to survive, are of as much importance as the people of whom we have been hearing so much to-night. I refer to the men who are responsible for running the ship—the men engaged in looking after the engines. I think every officer, and anyone who knows anything about ships, will agree that nowadays the person responsible for keeping the engines in order is the most important person in the ship. If his work fails, the ship is lost. Yesterday the Secretary of State for War pointed out the folly of trying to make a soldier into a first-class engineer after one or two weeks' training, but in the Navy it seems to be imagined that an unskilled man could be trained first of all as a stoker, and that, after a few years, he is much better qualified to take charge of an engine-room than a man who has served five years at that occupation and, in addition, has had several years' experience in the Navy.
That question has been dealt with rather effectively by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth, but he represents a dockyard constituency, and this is a matter which concerns, not only Members for dockyard constituencies, but all Members of the House. Men who have entered the Service as skilled men should be properly
appreciated, and should not be placed in an inferior position to that in which they formerly were. It is a retrograde step, which should be resisted by those Members of this House who believe that a skilled man is necessary for this occupation. I hope that the First Lord will reconsider the position of these engine-room artificers. The safety and navigation of the ships depend on their skill, and if men of less skill and experience occupy these position, either the senior men will have to be responsible for their work, or the safety of everyone on board the ships will be endangered.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I look forward to hearing what the Government spokesman has to say about these engine-room artificers. It is incomprehensible to me why the status of so important a class should be lowered, as it was several years ago, and I should like to know what is the justification for reducing their status from chief petty officer to petty officer. I look forward also to hearing the reply of the Government spokesman on the question of marriage allowances, to which the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has made reference to-night. There is every reason in the world why, if the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty is to reply, we should have a favourable answer, because he will remember that, when these marriage allowances were proposed to be introduced by the Conservative Government, he leapt to his feet and claimed the whole credit, saying that it was a case to which he was devoted, that he had appointed the committee which had recommended the granting of these marriage allowances, and that he could not for one moment tolerate that any praise should go to a Conservative Government for action in this case which he had so deeply and intimately at heart.

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear! He is a very religious man!

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: He did appoint the Goodenough Committee during his period of office, and that committee, after having most exhaustively examined the question, unanimously recommended that the Government should introduce these allowances, thus putting the Navy on the same basis as the Army and the Air
Force. I questioned the Financial Secretary on the matter last year, as several other Members did, and he told us that another inquiry had been instituted. I should very much like to know the result of it because, whatever form it took, I am certain it was in favour of granting marriage allowances to naval officers. So it will be a matter of interest to hear what he has to say, particularly in view of the valiant part he has played in advocating these allowances when in Opposition. I want to hear also what is the extent to which marriage allowances payable to ratings have been introduced. The pay has recently been reduced. There is a lower scale of pay than heretofore and any diminution in the amount payable in respect of wives and children must fall most seriously upon the Service. I should like to know what the extent of those reductions may be.
The Noble Lady referred to stabilisation in the dockyards and the First Lord has taken, rightly, a great deal of credit for having kept the numbers employed so high, but there is a new aspect of stabilisation to which I would draw his sympathetic attention. Very few men become established in comparison with the numbers employed. Out of 10,000 employed at Devonport, fewer than 3,000 are established. It would be perfectly easy to give security of employment to a much larger number of men. I am aware that the number has been reduced from one in eight to one in six, but yet the number is materially less than it was a year ago and I think the Admiralty could with safety reduce it still further to one in two and thus give a more permanent form of tenure, accompanied with the prospect of pensions to a larger number of men.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull has spoken of the method of redressing grievances in the Navy. I should like to say a word on what I consider to be a matter of very grave and important principle, namely, the method of redressing grievances in the dockyards. There is in operation the Whitley Council system. Under the constitution of the Whitley Councils, on every shop committee, there is supposed to be a representative of every union in the shop, but that principle is not followed. The
constitution is not obeyed, and there are numbers of unions which can never have direct representation of their grievances. When I asked the First Lord about it, he gave me a very astonishing answer. He told me that no man had a right to be represented on the Whitley Council unless he belonged to a union affiliated to the Trade Union Congress. Under the law of England as it is to-day, no established civil servant can belong to a union that is affiliated to the Trade Union Congress. As I was told yesterday, 275 Civil Service unions have been given a certificate under the Act of 1927, and they are the only properly authorised unions as far as established civil servants are concerned. So you have this ridiculous position that the Whitley Council lays down that in every shop a representative of every union shall have a right to represent his grievance to his own representative on the Whitley Council and you have a law that says no established civil servant shall belong to a union that is affiliated to the Trade Union Congress, and when I drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the case of unions representing the men in that craft who wish to be represented on the Whitley Council, he says they cannot be so represented because they do not belong to unions affiliated to the Trade Union Congress.
There is, in particular, a union to which I have drawn his attention, called the National Union of Government Ship-joiners, Furnishers and Allied Trades. [Interruption.] Hon. Members believe in democracy when it suits them. When a number of men belong to a union authorised by the law as it now is, and they wish to belong to that union, by what democratic principle can you deny them representation, even though you disagree with their principles? So far as Devonport is concerned, this union has 184 members, out of 226 persons employed in that particular craft. The Woodworkers' Union have only seven members. Over 90 per cent. of the men of that craft belong to that other union, and they have to be represented on the Whitley Council by a woodworker. In Chatham, there happen to be no woodworkers at all, and the majority of the men belong to the other union. Whatever your political views may be, you,
cannot deny the men the right to be represented in the manner in which they wish to be represented.
This union has a particular claim to recognition because it was formed as the result of the Admiralty's own action, in enjoining piecework in the dockyard. Every union accepted except the Woodworkers' Union. The consequence was that everybody left the Woodworkers' Union and preferred to do piecework. They may be right or wrong, but the Admiralty cannot turn round on men who have done exactly what they asked to be done, and say, "Because you have done this, you cannot represent your own grievances through your own men." I appeal with confidence to this Government. Although it may not suit their particular theories, let them not permit the perpetuation of an apparent and flagrant injustice.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Hon. Members, including the Noble Lady for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby), have all been very sorry for our naval officers who require marriage allowances. I can understand their sympathy and sorrow, but I wonder why their sorrow stops short at naval officers? How generous they can be when they are contemplating the difficulties of naval officers, and how stingy when contemplating the difficulties of the unemployed! The troubles of the people whom they are sympathetic about are very great. They cannot keep the home fires burning and educate their children on the poor, miserable salary of over £500 per year, which is the salary of the people over whom we are asked to weep tears.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? Will he tell me what naval officer gets a salary of £500 a year?

Mr. HAYCOCK: When these people work for six years they get a salary that a miner would not look at, of £570 per year. Not only that, I believe they get their clothes, their food, and their washing thrown in. I do not want to be hard-hearted.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: What clothes does the naval officer get?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: When the hon. Member speaks of that salary, is he aware that he is speaking of lieut.-commanders, a senior service, and that those below that rank do not get anything like that figure?

Mr. HAYCOCK: I believe the hon. Member is asking for a marriage allowance for lieutenant-commanders.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: What about clothes?

Mr. HAYCOCK: I understand that they get a clothing allowance. If they do not get a clothing allowance I shall feel a little bit more sorry for them than I do now. When we ask for another shilling a week for the dependants of the men who are unemployed, we are told that we cannot afford it. We can only afford to give 2s. a week to keep the child of an unemployed person. I am not going to be awfully sorry for naval officers. Until we can raise the rates for the unemployed and their dependants, we shall have to think in terms of strict economy for naval officers. Lieutenant-commanders get 25 per cent. more than Members of Parliament. Why not a marriage allowance for Members of Parliament? Believe me, I am a bachelor, but I am not at all bigoted, and if there is to be a marriage allowance for Members of Parliament it may encourage me to change my mind. I am told that Admirals get retired pay—they do not call it the dole—of between £800 and £900 a year.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: No.

Mr. HAYCOCK: What is the amount?

Rear-Admiral SUETER: My retired pay is not £900 a year.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Will the hon. and gallant Member tell me how much he gets? I say that Admirals are getting retired pay of between £800 and £900 a year. I have been to the fountain head and got real information.

Rear-Admiral SUETER rose—

The CHAIRMAN: We are in Committee. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to speak he will have his opportunity later.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I have discovered that a lieutenant-commander, retired, gets a minimum of £222 10s. per annum, or more than twice as much for doing nothing as a miner gets for going down into the pit and risking his life so many hours a day. I would like to give marriage allowances, but, first of all, if we are to have economies, if we are to cut down to the last penny, I want us to think in the terms of the unemployed and others who have fallen by the wayside, before we are generous to people who have a minimum pension of £220 a year when they are out of work and £500 when they are in work. The hon. and Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) tells us that she has fought for the Navy all her life. May I ask, for what navy?

Viscountess ASTOR: The Canadian Navy.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Not the Virginian Navy? She tells us that she yields to no one in her admiration for the Navy; that she has loved it all her life, and for 24 years before she arrived here. She loves it because it is the one thing which stabilises the peace of the world. She has told us that peace will never come from dreamy long-haired internationalists; and she loves the Navy because it is the one guarantee for peace. I wonder whether the hon. Lady ever studied logic. If internationalists had their way and all the gunboats were scrapped what terrible battles we should have at sea. That is the logic of her argument. Peace is not going to come by building more and more gunboats and cruisers, but when the nations realise that there is nothing to be gained from war, that it is the craziest thing possible. We must think in terms of disarmament.
I come to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby), who said that we were bleeding the Navy white; cutting it to the very bone. We are spending £51,000,000 per year on the Navy. He talked about the United States Navy and its personnel. Is America the new enemy? Have we had a Five-Power Conference? What are we frightened about? The German Navy is at the bottom of the sea; there is no Russian Navy at all. Yet the hon. and gallant Member said that we are bleed-
ing the British Navy white in spending £51,000,000 per annum on it. I wish we were spending a few million pounds less on it and a few million pounds more on things that matter. We are spending £100,000 a year on radium for cancer research, or one-eightieth part of the cost of a dreadnought. Yet there is far more danger to the nation from cancer than from the navies of other countries. £51,000,000 is to be spent on the Navy and it is "scraping to the bone." And we had a war to end war. A million boys, my pals and yours, are dead. It was to be the last war. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom told us that the Empire will view with misgivings the reduction of Navy expenditure. If that is so, let the component parts of the Empire pay something towards the cost of the Navy. There are "a whole lot" in the Empire who are awfully patriotic—I happen to be a very patriotic Canadian—but they are patriotic on the cheap, at a cost of nothing. I apologise for having occupied so much time. To the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton I say: "I forgive you for everything that you have said, because I know that your intentions are good, and because I know that there is still hope for you." I have intervened in the Debate because I wanted to speak of things that matter. I wish we were spending millions and millions more in fighting the real enemies, which are poverty and misery and a bad social system.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I wish to raise the question of the medical service of the Navy. Last night, on the Army Estimates, I referred to the Royal Army Medical Corps, and showed the dependence of our fighting Services in general on their medical services. The Secretary of State then said that the position was serious in the Army and Navy and Air Force. From these Estimates I do not quite understand what is the exact position. It is difficult to understand what is the number of medical officers in the Navy. It seems that the number has been reduced by 50, compared with last year. The Services Committee of the British Medical Association have looked into the question sympathetically for a long time, and have approached the different Services con-
cerned. We are in a very serious position in this respect and I ask the First Lord if he is taking serious steps to deal with the situation. There is no mention, either in the White Paper or in the Estimates, of the seriousness of the position but it is possible that the right hon. Gentleman may have some explanation to offer, which does not appear on the surface. I maintain, however, that the position as regards the medical service, which is so serious in the Army, is also serious in the Navy, but in the case of the Navy it is camouflaged or hidden and nobody realises it. The health of the Navy is a vital factor in its efficiency, and is also vital in relation to civil purposes. Here we have about 100,000 of the best fellows in the country, at the best time of their lives, entrusted to the State and the State ought to look after them, and return them to civil life in a condition of perfect fitness to carry out the duties of civilian occupations. The medical service of the Navy is important from that standpoint, if from no other.
The First Lord stated briefly that the health of the Navy was good but "good" is a comparative term. I agree with him that it is good, but there is one serious matter to which I would direct attention. In diseases attaching to overseas service there was a steady decline up to 1925, but, since then, the decrease has not been continued. I believe that the position in that respect is affected by the shortage of medical officers and the failure of the Admiralty to take the matter as seriously as they might. I wish to know if it is the case that the British Social Hygiene Council has approached the Admiralty and offered its help in regard to providing educational facilities at home, and amusements and so on in ports oversea, where it is so essential that the health of the men should be safeguarded. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inform us if the Admiralty have made use of the services of that excellent association. Further, I would remark that if research is to be carried on, in connection with the medical services of the Navy, by men holding temporary commissions, who cannot be identified with the service in the same way as permanent officers, we shall be in a precarious position in that respect.
I understand that an Inter-Departmental Committee is being set up to deal with the question of the medical service
in relation to all three Services, and I would urge on the First Lord, as I urged on the Secretary of State for War, that this subject should be regarded in a broader way. Hitherto the Services have been trying to find some solution of this difficulty, but they have not up to the present, acting independently, provided a career which would attract a young medical men. I believe that the State, as a whole, would have the power to offer such a career. The State should act as agent for all the different medical services for which it is responsible and towards which it contributes. Suggestions as to fusing the medical branches of the Services have always met with disaster, because the Services are not prepared to take that course in reference to any of their constituent parts.
It would be impossible to fuse the medical services of the different Government Departments, but I believe the State could act as agents for the recruiting, exchange, and transference, and finally the pension and gratuity rights of the service. In that way they might get a career for medical officers which would enable them to see the possibility of choosing the Navy for a certain length of years, and then, at 40 or 50, standing a good chance of finding occupation in the public medical services to which the State contributes, I hope the First Lord will help the Inter-Departmental Committee, when it is set up, to arrive at a solution on very broad lines, and I am sure he will find the medical Members of this House, the British Medical Association, and the profession generally, only too anxious to help him to find a solution.

Mr. AMMON: I think it will be for the convenience of hon. Members if I reply now on the Debate. To deal first with the last point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), I can tell him right away that that has been a matter of considerable concern to the Board of Admiralty, and we have given very close attention to it quite recently. The present position is that we are about 40 below strength so far as medical officers are concerned, and we have referred the matter to an Inter-Departmental Committee with a view to ariving at a solution of the problem. I would point out that there are greater opportunities for medical officers to earn large sums of money outside, and therefore it
is more difficult for them to give service to a Service like the Navy than was the case in days gone by.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the hon. Member appreciate that it is not only finance, but that if he would give a wider career and prospects, he might be able to solve the problem?

Mr. AMMON: I am delighted, and I hope that in that respect the hon. and gallant Member speaks with some authority, because I am sure it will help us considerably in the matter under consideration. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) raised a question with regard to discipline in the Navy, and that was also referred to by other hon. Members. As far as the question of the "Lucia" is concerned, I do not propose to touch on that again, as my right hon. Friend the First Lord has already done so. I think, however, there is a great deal of unintentional exaggeration with regard to the position as it now is. There has been a considerable revision of the rules and regulations governing the discipline of the Navy, and we have taken steps quite recently to ensure that it is brought to the attention of every rating in the Navy that they have a perfect right to appeal right through if they want to do so and that none dare make them afraid. We have paid special attention to see that that is done, and there is no reason to think that it will not be carried out. I ought to say that the rules were revised in 1929 in order to bring them into line with the rules so far as the Army is concerned, and therefore when the Army regulations are held up to us as a pattern, I would point out that we have followed that pattern; and if the rules are given a fair trial I am sure there will not be much to find fault with. The standard of discipline and of conduct in the Navy, as my right hon. Friend has said, is very high, and the amount of attention that has been attracted by certain recent events is, after all, an indication of how rare these things are, and the high standard that obtains in the Navy.
The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) raised some questions regarding the personnel, and although I am not one to take offence. I must say that I resent the tone in which he approached that problem as
if the Government were acting in a hardhearted and arbitrary manner and had regard only to the pressure brought upon them in certain quarters.

Commander SOUTHBY: I had no intention of conveying any impression that the present Government were having pressure brought upon them from any quarter to do anything unjust.

Mr. AMMON: I am glad to have given the opportunity to the hon. and gallant Gentleman of making it clear that that was not what he intended, because, if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that he spoke in specific terms. It was indicated last year by the First Lord that there would be a certain gradual reduction of the personnel of the Navy over a number of years. We are equally concerned that, while we have this task of running the Navy, it shall be properly manned and efficient. Such reductions as have been made have been made from regard to real economy—not economy merely to save money, but the economy that gives proper and efficient service. There has been no economy in the real efficiency of the Navy. When hon. Members refer to a marked cutting down having taken place over a number of years, they should have regard to the fact that a remarkable change in respect of the diminution of personnel has resulted from the change over from coal to oil, which has meant cutting by half, and sometimes more, the number of men formerly employed. The United States figures have been referred to, but they are not comparable. They include marine land forces and aeronautical units which are included in the Royal Air Force in this country. If some means could be found of comparing like with like, it would be seen that we have nothing to fear from the comparison.
The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Captain W. G. Hall) raised the question of the engine-room artificers. I have gone into this matter very carefully, and have received a deputation on it. There has been some slight exaggeration or misunderstanding about it. These artisans, for the first three years, instead of being rated as chief petty officers, are rated as petty officers, and they go on to the position of chief petty officer after three years. That has
been found, on the whole, to work much better, because by that time these young men have caught the Navy atmosphere, and they get into it better than they would have done if they had started as chief petty officers at first. I can assure hon Members that they are quite mistaken in assumnig that we are lacking recruits. There was a falling off in the earlier half of 1930, but things have picked up considerably, and we are getting sufficient men. The figures which have been quoted with regard to rejections are, after all, an indication of the high standard. The difficulty is that we cannot always get them of a sufficient educational and physical standard, but nevertheless we get sufficient.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fact that you have lowered the standard from 60 marks to 30 marks, and that a higher status would attract a higher standard?

Mr. AMMON: It is not a fact that we have lowered the standard. The position is that young men are entered at a lower rate, and afterwards have the opportunity of getting to a higher rate.

Captain W. G. HALL: Is it not a fact that, although you have a lower grade, the age is still the same? They are not entering at a younger age and are still trained men.

Mr. AMMON: I have said so. They come in as quite young men, and for the first three years are petty officers instead of entering right away as chief petty officers, and it has been found for the moral of the Service that this has not been a disadvantage. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I have given close attention to this matter and could I have seen my way to meet his position without feeling that I was doing it without regard to the merits of the case I should have done it. I turn to some of the points raised by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). The question of reductions has already been referred to in the answer I have given to another hon. Member. Reductions are only on the lines of genuine economy, which has regard to all other factors as well as money, there is a proper and full complement of men
in all departments of the Navy for the proper carrying on of the Service.

Viscountess ASTOR: Has the hon. Gentleman received any complaints about the men who when they come back from overseas service do not get the time at home that they used to get?

Mr. AMMON: I have not heard that. It is quite a new point, and, if the Noble Lady will let me have any case, I will be glad to look into it. The Noble Lady raised the question of marriage allowances and on that subject the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) made his usual speech which is becoming an annual event; he is in danger of becoming quite a gramophone in regard to that subject. It is not so easy as it looks. I have not said that there is to be a fresh inquiry. I have said that the Board of Admiralty have had it under consideration. There are certain inquiries to make and certain information needed, and I am not in a position to say whether or not it will be granted, or whether it will be turned down. I do not say that the latter position is entirely out of the question.

Commander SOUTHBY: Can the hon. Gentleman hold out any hopes that the result of the deliberations will be made public at a fairly early date.

Mr. AMMON: I cannot go into anything like that. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows anything about the Board of Admiralty, he will leave it there. I was surprised that the Noble Lady—I am not quite so surprised about the hon. Member for Devonport—that she was not generous enough to admit that we had maintained the personnel of the dockyards. We have certainly endeavoured, and we shall continue to do so, to maintain that personnel. It must be remembered that the percentage of men established is much higher than it was some time ago. We have raised the proportion of established vacancies filled from one in eight to one in six which is a considerable advance.
12 m.
As to the Whitley Councils, I ask the hon. Member whether it is his purpose to destroy them, because that is what his proposals tend to. The Whitley Councils include representatives of those unions which are affiliated to the Trade Union
Congress, and though that arrangement, which is the result of an agreement, may give rise to anomalies, if those other bodies to which he referred were on the councils there would be withdrawals and the councils would collapse. Avenues of appeal are open to all in the naval service; there are opportunities for them, whether they belong to trade unions or not, to present memorials which will have fair and proper consideration. One other point—

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member asked me a question and is now passing away from the subject. He asked me whether it was my purpose to destroy the Whitley Council. I say the action of the hon. Member is destroying the Whitley Council because he is not allowing the unions to be represented in accordance with the constitution of the council. I also put to him the point that under the law of England an established civil servant may no longer belong to a union affiliated to the Trade Union Congress. He has not dealt with that point.

Mr. AMMON: They can belong to unions affiliated to the Congress, but not to the political Labour party—a different thing altogether. The hon. Member is putting up dummies in order to knock them down. The agreement is that the men shall be represented on the Whitley Council through associations, and it is really implicit in the constitution that they shall be associations affiliated to the Trade Union Congress. If that agreement were varied the Whitley Council would collapse. The answer I give to the hon. Member is that if we did what he wants, the Whitley Council would be dead within 24 hours. As to the retirement of officers, the case raised by the hon. Member is no doubt one of hardship for a young man who started out in the hope of following a career which he thought would appeal to him. The roots of this matter go very far back, however. In 1922 it was found that there were too many officers, and some scheme had to be put in hand to deal with the situation. We do not want to cut down the number of officers, but there are too many officers for the positions available. Accordingly, a scheme has been drawn up to deal with surplus officers, and they will have the opportunity of retiring on
a special form of retired pay ranging from £225 10s. as a minimum to £360 a year as a maximum. The first scheme covers 150 officers and the retirements will be in batches. I hope we shall be able to arrange retirements voluntarily; we are trying to work the plan in that way.

Commander SOUTHBY: Will these rates be fixed or fluctuating rates?

Mr. AMMON: They will be standard rates. If the hon. and gallant Member looks at it fairly, he will see that we are trying to meet the hardships which we all deplore in a fair and generous spirit. We have no desire to make difficulties or to act in any arbitrary spirit, but we have to face the facts of the situation. We have to see that the road to promotion is not blocked, and we have endeavoured to do so in a way that will not cause soreness or hardship to those who come under the axe.

Mr. KINLEY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by 90,000 men.
This is a very necessary challenge to the whole outlook of the House with regard to the question of naval armaments. I have heard only one suggestion in this Debate teat the Government ought to make any effort towards peace, that they ought to make any effort towards reducing the Navy to a point that will render warfare impossible as far as we are concerned. That was put forward along with the suggestion that other countries should do the same, that there should be international action for the abolition of navies. Until we get seriously down to that question, we are simply deluding ourselves with the belief that the present position of our Navy and the present proposals of our naval chiefs mean a step towards a better state of affairs. Is it not true to say that the correct diagnosis of the position is that we are not limiting naval armaments but are limiting the expansion of naval armaments? There was a good deal of criticism in America of the Five-Power Naval Conference by people who wish the abolition of all forms of warfare. Their criticism was that its result actually was to enable the United States of America to increase the size of its navy.
No one will suggest that any agreement which allows a Power to increase its armaments can be considered to be any solution of the disarmament problem. Further, the latest reports that we have mean, again, that one of the two Powers concerned will, under the agreement suggested, be enabled to increase its own fighting power. However many agreements we may make, they will mean that one Power or another is going to increase its fighting strength; and we ourselves, in black and white, categorically reserve to ourselves, not merely the number of men that is being asked for to-day, but actually the right, in certain contingencies, to increase our naval strength. It will be utterly impossible for this country in the future, as it has been in the past, to get any nearer to disarmament, or to make any contribution to it that is worth while.
When the suggestion is put forward that total disarmament—the abolition of the whole of our naval personnel—is the one solution, it is countered, overwhelmingly, one has to admit, by the exact opposite. We are assured on all hands that the one way to make for peace in this world is to fill ourselves full with fighting weapons and fighting men. We are assured that, if only we make our Navy strong enough, there will be no fear of our ever having to use it. So also the French people in France, the Italians in Italy, the Americans in the United States, and the Japanese in Japan, are assured that, if only they provide themselves with navies large enough, there will never be any naval warfare. That is all rubbish. There is no one who believes that, or who ever did believe it—no one, at least, with any intelligence, for the whole history of the world is one long repetition of battle after battle between those very Powers which have striven with might and main to make themselves so overwhelmingly powerful as to be able to overcome all with whom they came into conflict. The bigger the navies grew, the more deadly were those battles when they came. When was there, in the history of any naval Power of to-day, any period when there was no danger of war? When was there a period in our own country when those responsible for the Navy were not eagerly and keenly searching the naval preparations and personnel of every other naval Power? Are
they not doing it to-day? Are not even our former Allies constantly contrasting the comparative strengths of the British Navy and of those of the United States and France? And why? Because they know that sooner or later this Navy of ours is going to be used. It will not be used, presumably, against any but a naval Power, and therefore our present Navy, even at a time of negotiation with both these other countries, is being brought up to such a pitch that, when the time shall come, they will have no chance against us. That is the aim of everyone who shouts for a big Navy, big Army or a big Air Force. The whole idea is to be so overwhelmingly powerful that no one else shall have a fair chance, that you shall be able to ride roughshod, or impose your will upon other people who have made less preparation than you yourself have.
On those lines, no nation on earth has yet succeeded. Every nation that has attempted that has failed. Britain to-day is failing. Even those who do not hold the slightest spark of sympathy with the Amendment, those who are the biggest of the big Navy people, have to admit that they cannot stand up, as formerly they did, and demand a two-Power standard. They have been compelled by the very delevolment of other peoples to limit the personnel that they are asking for and, in that limitation, to acknowledge their inferiority as compared with the position that they boasted of formerly. We have to recognise that other nations are developing their commerce and, just as Britain in its earlier days demanded that it must have a Navy powerful enough to protect its merchantmen on the whole the seas of the world, so every other country which is now developing a commerce of its own demands the same thing with the same logic, and international trade rivalry drives inevitably and unescapably in the direction of big navies. The one involves the other and compels the other.
Are we not painfully aware that there is a distinct danger that we may find ourselves in conflict with our American cousins because they have now arrived at a stage where they can deny to us the exercise of one of our injustices, that is the one that refers to the freedom of the seas? We are not any longer in the position of telling the whole world that
Britain rules the waves in peace and in war. We are slowly being forced against our will. The question is, is there any hope now that we shall be able to get this House to realise that the old way was the wrong way, that the present way is the wrong way, that you cannot disarm while arming, that you cannot hope to make any progress in that direction no matter how many conferences you may hold, no matter how many agreements you may enter into, while at the same time every Power concerned in those conferences has its own expert staff and is seeking, morning, noon and night, to make its weapon much more efficient and deadly than it ever had been before. Let us not deceive ourselves. Here is this weapon. In the past we have used it for many purposes. We have used it, for instance, in developing this Empire of ours, and the Empire would never have been ours but for that use that we made of our Navy, to deprive other people of their own countries. Deprived of our Navy, obviously that part of our development would go, and we believe that we should be a better people for it.
With regard to the 90,000 even that we are going to take away, it may be insisted that they are essential for the maintenance of Britain's position in the world. Who are they and where do they come from? They are men who belong to the class to which I belong, and who now, just as in days gone by and since the press gang was abolished, have been driven into the Service by sheer force of circumstances. They are forced into the Service through pressure of unemployment. That is what is happening to-day. [Interruption.] I am speaking now of men in my own constituency; I know they are no different from those in any other.

Viscountess ASTOR: Different from those in my constituency!

Mr. KINLEY: I know this: if you were to take the whole of the men who are serving in the Navy to-day, and offer every one his freedom together with a job to go to, you would have very few men left in the Navy to-morrow. They have been driven there; they are being driven there, and they will be driven there in future. It is mean of any nation to take advantage of the unemployment and poverty of its people to build up a
strong and powerful Navy to be used against other peoples and against itself. I would like, for many reasons, to see the passing of this Amendment. Apart from anything else, I would know that those to whom I belong, the workers of Britain, would have at least one foe less to fight in any future strike. There are very many bad patches in the history of our Navy, when these men, drawn from the workers, have been sent under orders and armed, to prevent their fathers and brothers from securing better conditions on the industrial field. [Interruption.]

Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not true?

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: It's almost like a Soviet. [Interruption.]

Mr. KINLEY: So far as the workers of Britain are concerned, the passing of this Amendment would free them from two dangers. [Interruption.]

Mr. PYBUS: The hon. Gentleman is speaking for a class of the population who do not seem to exist.

Mr. BECKETT: They would not, if the hon. Member had his way.

Mr. KINLEY: One danger is the danger of this weapon of the Navy being used against the workers in their industrial conflicts in future, and the second danger is that during their unemployment, owing to their lack of the necessaries of life, the workers may be forced into a Service which, in 99 cases out of 100, they have always found unsavoury and unsatisfactory from beginning to end. No one need pretend that the Navy is a happy family of very happy men, who would not leave if they had an opportunity. No one need pretend that the Navy is satisfied. Whatever claim may be made for the Navy, I hope that no one in this House will ever claim that to find ideal conditions of men living in perfect happiness one has to go to the British Navy, because no one would believe it; certainly no one who has been in touch with those who have served and those who are serving. I ask the Committee to support the Amendment, and I hope that it will be carried. I want those who have some misgiving as to the amount of the proposed reduction, to bear in mind that this is only asking to be done at once what they are
hoping may be done by a series of steps. Instead of grading the Navy down as an evil thing, as something to be abolished at the earliest possible opportunity, and instead of doing that step by step over a long period, it would be far better, more effective and more just to everyone concerned to abolish the whole thing at once, and let the nation and the Government be compelled, willy-nilly, to settle the whole of its disputes with everybody in the future not on the basis of holding the biggest guns but on the basis of reason, argument, justice and fair play.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have to say at once that we cannot possibly accept the Amendment. I think it best to reply briefly and not at length, as did my right hon. Friend last night on the Army Vote, because my hon. Friends behind me know perfectly well that. I understand their point of view, and I think they know perfectly well that they understand my point of view. It would be useless to debate the matter at length. My hon. Friends are going into the Lobby in order to register the point of view which they have expressed to-night, and which they expressed last night. We can only proceed as quickly as we can get international agreement by pro-rata reduction. I think the Committee will give the Foreign Secretary, myself and others this credit, that we have laboured unceasingly, since the Prime Minister first gave the lead in July, 1929, to get pro-rata reduction in armaments. As long as I am at the Admiralty I shall continue to labour to that end, but I must never forget, even then, that, while I am there, I am charged with the oversight of the security of my fellow-countrymen. I cannot accept the Amendment, and, with the explanation that I have given, I hope it will suit the convenience of the House to proceed to a Division.

Commander SOUTHBY: I have no desire to occupy the attention of the House for more than one minute, and I agree that the First Lord has adopted the right attitude with regard to the Amendment in not giving anything more than a brief reply. But one statement made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) is so wrong and so unfair that someone should stand up and prove it to be wrong.
The hon. Member talked about service in the Navy being unsavoury, and he would have us believe that men have joined the Navy because they were driven to it by starvation and unemployment. I challenge him to go to any dockyard and tell the men that and see what would happen. If he told the men that they were slaves, it would be hotly resented.

Mr. MAXTON: But it would not be any the less true.

Commander SOUTHBY: I suppose there is no service in which there is so much happiness and comradeship as in the Royal Navy, and that has come down ever since the Navy first began and has been a feature of the Service all through its history. I think that for any hon. Member to stand up and let it go out from this House that it is believed by hon. Members opposite that the men in the Services are not free and do not join of their own will and are not happy is a monstrous misuse of debate in this House.

Mr. SIMMONS: I do not apologise for detaining the House for five minutes, because for eight hours the admirals and commanders have had their fling while for half-an-hour those of us who hold a minority point of view have been trying to put our point of view. I particularly do not desire to cast a vote to-night that will be a silent vote. I feel that a tribute ought to be paid to what the present Government have done for the cause of international peace, especially the work of the First Lord of the Admiralty and of the Foreign Secretary very recently. I do not want my vote to be cast with a feeling behind it that it is a vote of hostility to the present Government. Last night a little heat was engendered into our Debate because things were not looked at in their right perspective.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Not by the admirals.

Mr. SIMMONS: No, not by the admirals; it was the generals last night. The Government have said, and we must respect their opinion, that unilateral disarmament is going to get us nowhere. But some of us do stand for unilateral disarmament, and the only chance we
have of demonstrating that fact is by going into the Lobby on an Amendment such as this. I recognise that we only represent a small minority in the country, but even a small minority has a right to be heard in this House and to go into the Division Lobby in order to give some idea of the volume of that minority in the country. I believe that unilateral disarmament is a principle being preached from countless platforms in this country and that it is receiving more support than many hon. Members realise, and I should be disloyal to my own principles if I did not take the opportunity of expressing them even at the risk of the displeasure of some of my hon. Friends.
I may be a young man in a hurry on this question of war and peace and disarmament, but there is need for hurry. The boy who was born in 1914 will be of military age next year, and my eldest boy in six years will be of military age. I may be wrong, but it is because I believe that the point of view which I hold is right that I want to make clear on the Floor of the House that point of view of disarmament by example. If some of us do not go on being pioneers of this idea we shall never get any further. It is only because a few people are prepared to take up these ideas that we can get on at all. I do not want to associate myself with any attacks on members of the fighting forces. I played my own small part in the last War and I have many comrades among those in the fighting forces. They were jolly good fellows, and there was a great feeling of comradeship and fellowship. But we object that these men under orders have sometimes to do tasks against the interests to which they belong, and only to that extent do I associate myself with any remarks that have just been made concerning the men in the fighting forces. I fought with them and lost some of my hest pals among them. It is because I have an abiding memory of many of my friends who did not come back that I am working for the same ideal for which they laid down their lives.

Question put, "That a number, not exceeding 3,650, be employed for the said Sea Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 11; Noes 152.

Division No. 189.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gillett, George M.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Glassey, A. E.
Longbottom, A. W.


Addison, Rt Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gossling, A. G.
Longden, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gould, F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Alpass, J. H.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lowth, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lunn, William


Arnott, John
Granville, E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gray, Milner
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Ayles, Walter
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
McElwee, A.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Groves, Thomas E.
McEntee, V. L.


Barnes, Alfred John
Grundy, Thomas W.
McKinlay, A.


Barr, James
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)
MacNeill-Weir. L.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Benson, G.
Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McShane, John James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hardle, George D.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Manning, E. L.


Bromfield, William
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
March, S.


Brooke, W.
Haycock, A. W.
Marley, J.


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marshall, Fred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mathers, George


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Matters, L. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Maxton, James


Buchanan, G.
Herriotts, J.
Melville, Sir James


Burgess, F. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W.R. Wentworth)
Messer, Fred


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hoffman, P. C.
Millar, J. D.


Cameron, A. G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Mills, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Montague, Frederick


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Charleton, H. C.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Chater, Daniel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Clarke, J. S.
Johnston, Thomas
Muff, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Murnin, Hugh


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Rt. Hon Lelf (Camborne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Daggar, George
Kelly, W. T.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Dallas, George
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Palln, John Henry.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kinley. J.
Paling, Wilfrid


Day, Harry
Knight, Holford
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Perry, S. F.


Dukes, C.
Lang, Gordon
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Duncan, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ede. James Chuter
Lathan, G.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
L[...]w, Albert (Bolton)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Elmley. Viscount
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Pole, Major D. G.


England, Colonel A.
Lawrence, Susan
Potts, John S.


Foot, Isaac.
Lawson, John James
Price, M. P.


Freeman, Peter
Leach, W.
Pybus, Percy John


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lees, J.
Raynes, W. R.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lindley, Fred W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Ritson, J.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Townend, A. E.


Romeril, H. G.
Sitch, Charles H.
Vaughan, David


Rosbotham. D. S. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Viant, S. P.


Rowson, Guy
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Walkden, A. G.


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Watkins, F. C.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wellock, Wilfred


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Sanders, W. S.
Snell, Harry
Westwood, Joseph


Sandham, E.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
White, H. G.


Sawyer, G. F.
Sorensen, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Scott, James
Stamford, Thomas W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Scrymgeour, E.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sherwood, G. H.
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shield, George William
Sutton, J. E.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester.Loughb'gh).


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wise, E. F.


Shillaker, J. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Shinwell, E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thurtle, Ernest



Simmons, C. J.
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Toole, Joseph
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eden, Captain Anthony
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Penny, Sir George


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Richardson Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Astor, Viscountess
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Atholl, Duchess of
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ross, Ronald D.


Atkinson, C.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Salmon, Major I.


Balniel, Lord
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Beamish. Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beaumont, M. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Savery, S. S.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Simms, Major-General J.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith, R, W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smithers, Waldron


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Brown, Brig-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T,
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Butler, R. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Knox, Sir Alfred
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Campbell, E. T.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Carver, Major W. H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Tinne, J. A.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Colville, Major D. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Meller, R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cranborne, Viscount
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Crichton-stuart, Lord C.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Womersley, W. J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)



Duckworth, G. A. V.
O'Neill. Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Sir Frederick Thomson.


Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 190.]
AYES.
[12.41 a.m.


Ayles, Walter
Lea, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Stephen, Campbell


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Longden, F.



Kelly, W. T.
Maxton James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kinley, J.
Sandham, E.
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Brockway.


Kirkwood, D.
Simmons, C. J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raynes, W. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Remer, John R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Arnott, John
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Romerll, H. G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Astor, Viscountess
Hayday, Arthur
Ross, Ronald D.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hayes, John Henry
Rothschild, J. de


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Rowson, Guy


Benson, G.
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Salmon, Major I.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowen, J. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, sir N. Stewart


Bowyer, Captain sir George E. W.
Herriotts, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Bracken, B.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Sawyer, G. F.


Brooke, W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shield, George William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Shillaker, J. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lathan, G.
Sitch, Charles H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Burgess, F. G.
Lawson, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Butler, R. A.
Leach, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Campbell, E. T.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Smithers, Waldron


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Southby, Commander A. R J.


Charleton, H. C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Strauss, G. R.


Church, Major A. G.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.


Clarke, J. S.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sullivan, J.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Colville, Major D. J.
McElwee, A.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Daggar, George
McEntee, V. L.
Thomson, Sir F.


Dallas, George
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Manning, E. L.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Mansfield, W.
Vaughan, David


Dawson, Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Viant, S. P.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Marley, J.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Marshall, Fred
Wallace, H. W.


Ede, James Chuter
Mathers, George
Warrender, Sir Victor


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Westwood, Joseph


Gill, T. H.
Noel Baker. P. J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Glassey, A. E.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gossling, A. G.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gower, Sir Robert
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Sir George
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Granville, E.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John



Greene, W. P. Crawford
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Price, M. P.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pybus, Percy John
Wilfrid Paling.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

WAGES &C., OF OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES, AND CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £13,686,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on the Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND REPAIRS, AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,288,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932.

VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,401,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the
Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and abroad which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £495,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,, 1931, for Expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

NAVY (EXCESS), 1929.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £122,770 1s. 11d., be granted to His Majesty, to
make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1930.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Seven Minutes before One o'Clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Calder and Hebble Navigation Bill, New Junction Canal Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the University of Liverpool to consolidate the investments representing the endowments of the University; and for other purposes." [Liverpool University Bill [Lords.]

LIVERPOOL UNIVERSITY BILL. [Lords.]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

TAMWORTH CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill): the Marquess of Hartington; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Cazalet.

Report to lie upon the Table.